>
> Marc Verhaegen: No, no, Marcel: apiths are less derived (still thick enamel,
bunodont
> cheekteeth, shorter arms & hands, more vertical & bipedal locomotion etc.)

MW: Oreopithecus, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus all had intermediately thick
molar enamel-- not thick molar enamel. Australopithecus and Homo had thick molar
enamel or hyper thick molar enamel. So the molar enamel of Homo and
Australopithecus has become thicker than their hominin ancestors.

As far as the ancestors of African apes having thick enamel, Beynon, Dean, and
Reid showed these conclusions to be erroneous back in 1991:

"There was no evidence for a reduction in enamel formation rates in outer enamel
among African apes. These findings cast doubt on the proposition that the common
ancestor of great apes and man had thick enamel formed at a fast rate. It is
possible that thin enamel was the primitive condition, in which case thick
enamel in humans and in Sivapithecus is derived, suggesting that thick enamel on
low cusped teeth evolved on more than one occasion." Am J Phys Anthropol 1991;
86: 295–309 On thick and thin enamel in hominoids A. D. Beynon, M. C. Dean, D.
J. Reid

Chimpanzees and bonobos are totally different than australopithecines in body
mass especially since australopithecines are extremely sexually dimorphic in
body size while chimps and bonobos show very little sexual dimorphism in body
size.

Pan only has 11 significant cranio-dental similarities with Australopithecus
while Homo has 23 cranio-dental similarities with Australopithecus. Pan only has
4 postcranial similarities with  Australopithecus while Homo has 12 significant
postcranial similarities with Australopithecus. So the australopithecines were
clearly more closely related to humans than they were to the apes both
cranio-dentally and postcranially.

Australopithecines were also on a higher level of encephalization than great
apes: A.afarensis has an EQ of 24.7, A. africanus, 24.6; A. robustus, 25.6; A.
boisei, 25.0 (all approximately equal with each other) while the great apes have
a distinctly lower level of  encephalization: Gorilla, 18.2, Orangutan, 18.0;
Chimpanzee, 18.6; Bonobo, 18.5. (all approximately equal with each other).

Modern humans have an EQ of 62.9 while the earliest member of Homo (habilis) had
an EQ of 36.3.

The molecular evidence also suggest that life began on Earth 10 to 12 billion
years ago during a time when the Earth and the solar system did not even exist!
No one should ever take any molecular clock date seriously.

Marcel F. Williams

> than bonobos/chimps, but otherwise they resemble each other, eg, the Taung
> child strongly resembles a young chimp.
> "P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5];
> they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and ... even in
> cranial and facial features" Zihlman cs 1978.
> "A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes,
> is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous" Ferguson 1989.
> In Taung, "I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth
> definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the
> skull of a modern young chimpanzee" Woodward 1925.
> "The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than
> it resembles L338y-6" (juvenile A.boisei) Rak & Howell 1978.
> "In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and
> Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the
> extant chimpanzee" Bromage 1985.
> "I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a
> mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham's curve for brain development in
> Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early
> hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain
> volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and
> australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that 'as with pongids, the
> australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design'" Falk
> 1987.
> In Taung "pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate.
> This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus
> has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among
> higher primates" Bromage & Dean 1985.
> "That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] 'is distinguished from all
> living apes by the... unfused nasal bones' as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot
> be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate
> nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that
> of Australopithecus" Schultz 1941.
> "The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the
> Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more
> ape-like" Ferguson 1989.
> "Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods
> relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes" Bromage &
> Dean 1985.
> "Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes ... Thick
> enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the
> earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid" Martin 1985.
> In the South African fossils including Taung "sulcal patterns of 7
> australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like"
> Falk 1987.
> "Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal
> pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features
> appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in
> Hadar early hominids" Falk 1985.
> In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, OH.24 and OH.5,
> "craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of
> extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene
> hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these
> groups were also alike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are]
> found only in modern humans after the second year..." Laitman & Heimbuch
> 1982.
> "The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of
> Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal
> skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman
> hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal
> skeleton of modern H.sapiens" Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988.
> "Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and
> they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth
> patterns look like those of chimpanzees" Leakey 1981.
> "The 'keystone' nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of
> Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids,
> particularly clearly in some chimpanzees" Eckhardt 1987.
> Etc.
>
> > It would also require the
> > ancestors of Pan to lower their level of encephalization from the
> > australopithecine level ~25.0 back down to the great ape (orang,chimp,
> > gorilla) level ~18.5.
>
> Not impossible, but unlikely: according to the surface of their cheekteeth,
> apiths were much heavier than estimations based on limb lengths suggest, as
> well as estimations based on comparisons to humans rather than to apes.
>
>
>
> Humans & apiths are primitive (like most Miocene hominoids) in being more
> vertical, having thicker enamel, shorter canines etc.
> Apes are more primitive in having a rel.small brain, short legs, no
> ext.nose, but are derived in having evolved longer hands & arms, longer
> ilia, larger canines etc.
> Unlike apiths/apes, humans are derived in having an ext.nose, huge brain,
> small dentition, very long legs etc.
>
> - E.African apiths (afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei) resemble gorillas more
> than they resemble chmps (& much more than they resemble humans).
> - OTOH S.Afr.apiths (africanus-robustus) resemble chimps more than they
> resemble gorillas (& more than they resemble humans).
> The simplest way to explain this is that E.African & S.African apiths
> evolved in parallel (// "robustisation" due to colder & drier Pleistocene),
> and that the E.Afr.apiths were members of the genus Gorilla, and
> S.Afr.apiths of the genus Pan.
>
> Molecular data suggest H & P split 5 or 4 Ma. This perfectly fits the fossil
> record & everything we know. There's no need for supposing that H & P split
> 7 Ma or so.
>
> --marc
>

>> "m3dodds"Homo an Pan could both be Pleistocene species, with Pan as
>> a offshoot of the a'piths (Australopithecus).

> MW: That's not very likely since Pan shows very few cranio-dental and
> postcranial similarities with Australopithecus.

No, no, Marcel: apiths are less derived (still thick enamel, bunodont
cheekteeth, shorter arms & hands, more vertical & bipedal locomotion etc.)
than bonobos/chimps, but otherwise they resemble each other, eg, the Taung
child strongly resembles a young chimp.
"P.paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5];
they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and ... even in
cranial and facial features" Zihlman cs 1978.
"A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes,
is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous" Ferguson 1989.
In Taung, "I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth
definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the
skull of a modern young chimpanzee" Woodward 1925.
"The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than
it resembles L338y-6" (juvenile A.boisei) Rak & Howell 1978.
"In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and
Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the
extant chimpanzee" Bromage 1985.
"I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a
mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham's curve for brain development in
Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early
hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain
volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and
australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that 'as with pongids, the
australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design'" Falk
1987.
In Taung "pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate.
This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus
has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among
higher primates" Bromage & Dean 1985.
"That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] 'is distinguished from all
living apes by the... unfused nasal bones' as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot
be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate
nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that
of Australopithecus" Schultz 1941.
"The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the
Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more
ape-like" Ferguson 1989.
"Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods
relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes" Bromage &
Dean 1985.
"Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes ... Thick
enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the
earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid" Martin 1985.
In the South African fossils including Taung "sulcal patterns of 7
australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like"
Falk 1987.
"Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal
pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features
appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in
Hadar early hominids" Falk 1985.
In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, OH.24 and OH.5,
"craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of
extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene
hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these
groups were also alike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are]
found only in modern humans after the second year..." Laitman & Heimbuch
1982.
"The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of
Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal
skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman
hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal
skeleton of modern H.sapiens" Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988.
"Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and
they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth
patterns look like those of chimpanzees" Leakey 1981.
"The 'keystone' nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of
Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids,
particularly clearly in some chimpanzees" Eckhardt 1987.
Etc.

> It would also require the
> ancestors of Pan to lower their level of encephalization from the
> australopithecine level ~25.0 back down to the great ape (orang,chimp,
> gorilla) level ~18.5.

Not impossible, but unlikely: according to the surface of their cheekteeth,
apiths were much heavier than estimations based on limb lengths suggest, as
well as estimations based on comparisons to humans rather than to apes.



Humans & apiths are primitive (like most Miocene hominoids) in being more
vertical, having thicker enamel, shorter canines etc.
Apes are more primitive in having a rel.small brain, short legs, no
ext.nose, but are derived in having evolved longer hands & arms, longer
ilia, larger canines etc.
Unlike apiths/apes, humans are derived in having an ext.nose, huge brain,
small dentition, very long legs etc.

- E.African apiths (afarensis-aethiopicus-boisei) resemble gorillas more
than they resemble chmps (& much more than they resemble humans).
- OTOH S.Afr.apiths (africanus-robustus) resemble chimps more than they
resemble gorillas (& more than they resemble humans).
The simplest way to explain this is that E.African & S.African apiths
evolved in parallel (// "robustisation" due to colder & drier Pleistocene),
and that the E.Afr.apiths were members of the genus Gorilla, and
S.Afr.apiths of the genus Pan.

Molecular data suggest H & P split 5 or 4 Ma. This perfectly fits the fossil
record & everything we know. There's no need for supposing that H & P split
7 Ma or so.

--marc

> "m3dodds"Homo an Pan could both be Pliestocene species, with Pan as
> a offshoot of the a'piths (Australopithecus).

MW: That's not very likely since Pan shows very few cranio-dental and
postcranial similarities with Australopithecus. It would also require the
ancestors of Pan to lower their level of encephalization from the
australopithecine level ~25.0 back down to the great ape (orang,chimp, gorilla)
level ~18.5.

>
> "m3dodds"As to the distance between the 'island' and the mainland ...
> I was assuming the distances given in Km on the map in your
> paper were roughly accurate...  in which case it it appears
> the smaller 'island' to the north of the 'island' appears to
> be somewhat less than 1 km distant, with the stretch of
> water between it an the next 'island' in the chain being
> roughly 1 - 1.5 km. (macaque monkeys have been known to
> swim, just under a kilometre)

MW: The problem with hopping from an already small island to a nearby 'tiny'
island is whether or not a viable reproductive population of hominins could
actually successfully survive in such tiny geographically limited areas.


> Sahelanthropus may be a sister species of the last common ancestor
> of the ancestors of chimpanzee and Homo, or ancestral to the LCA.
>
> Think Oreopithecus lies a little too far back in time, how for
> instance would you fit in the the divergence date given
> for gorilla?
>
>
> ---m3d
>

MW: Oreopithecine remains are dated at approximately 7.6 million years ago.
Sahelanthropus remains are dated between 6.8 to 7.2 million years ago. Both
Oreopithecus and Sahelanthropus show-- radical modifications of their
cranio-dental morphology from an ape-like morphology in a distinctly hominin
direction.

The gorilla clade had already diverged from Pan/Homo more than 10.5 million
years ago as evident from the remains of the fossil member of the gorilla clade,
Chororapithecus abyssinicus.

Marcel F. Williams

Human-specific transcriptional regulation of CNS development genes by FOXP2
Export
G Konopka cs 2009 Nature

The signalling pathways controlling both the evolution & development of
language in the human brain remain unknown.
So far, the transcription factor FOXP2 (forkhead box P2) is the only gene
implicated in Mendelian forms of human speech & language dysfunction.
It has been proposed that the amino acid composition in the human variant of
FOXP2 has undergone accelerated evolution, and this 2-AA change occurred
around the time of language emergence in humans.
However, this remains controversial, and whether the acquisition of these
AAs in human FOXP2 has any functional consequence in human neurons remains
untested.

Here we demonstrate that these 2 human-specific AAs alter FOXP2 function by
conferring differential  transcriptional regulation in vitro.
We extend these observations in vivo to human & chimpanzee brain, and use
network analysis to identify novel relationships among the differentially
expressed genes.
These data provide experimental support for the functional relevance of
changes in FOXP2 that occur on the human lineage, highlighting specific
pathways with direct consequences for human brain development & disease in
the central nervous system.
Because FOXP2 has an important role in speech & language in humans, the
identified targets may have a critical function in the development &
evolution of language circuitry in humans.



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

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



If the Ardipithecus were in that particular area, I agree it
is likely that a number of them would have been likely to have
survived on the 'island' ... it being the only high ground
available. As to the likely population - if they had gone on
to inhabit the 'island' for a number of generations, then it
is likely there were enough of them on the 'island' to form
a viable population.

If Ardipithecus is ancestral to Homo - then obviously they
would be the only hominin in Africa 5.3 Mya ... I have not
until now considered Ardipithecus as ancestral to Homo, but
you may be right ... considering what we now know about
the Ardipithecus. (Ardipithecus ramidus)

Homo an Pan could both be Pliestocene species, with Pan as
a offshoot of the a'piths (Australopithecus).

As to the distance between the 'island' and the mainland ...
I was assuming the distances given in Km on the map in your
paper were roughly accurate...  in which case it it appears
the smaller 'island' to the north of the 'island' appears to
be somewhat less than 1 km distant, with the stretch of
water between it an the next 'island' in the chain being
roughly 1 - 1.5 km. (macaque monkeys have been known to
swim, just under a kilometre)

Would agree with you that molecular clock dates are questionable
and often wrong, but if they are in error as much as claimed in
that item on penguins, then they are of little value. Think there
is a recent study giving a divergence date of 4 Mya for the
ancestors of chimpanzee and Homo - which seems highly unlikely.
IMO the most likely date is the start of the Pliocene (5.3 Mya) a
date between 5 and 6 Mya ... and would tie the divergence to the
events surrounding the drying out of the Med sea basin.

Sahelanthropus may be a sister species of the last common ancestor
of the ancestors of chimpanzee and Homo, or ancestral to the LCA.

Think Oreopithecus lies a little too far back in time, how for
instance would you fit in the the divergence date given
for gorilla?


---m3d






> > 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
> >
>

> How do you know this? This is very categorical.....if I assume
> that you base your assertion on Ardipithecus fossils being the
> closest to a 5.3 Mya date, it's not at all clear how you go from
> this to the proposition that Ardipithecus was the only hominin that
> existed in Africa at that time. Why in this case would an absence
> of evidence be evidence of absence.....especially over an area
> as large as Africa? As a matter of interest....why 5.3 Mya -
> aren't the Ardipithecus fossils dated to 4.4 Mya?

MW: Ardipithecine fossil remains are found as early as 5.6 million years ago and
as young as 4.3 million years ago. And they are the only hominin known to exist
in Africa at that time.



> >
> I've been unable to find the map you mentioned in a previous
> post.....you wrote that it's on page 9 of a paper you authored
> and I'd very much appreciate a link. I clearly need to get a
> more detailed idea of your Danakil island scenario and any
> links to this end would also be appreciated.

A pdf copy of my paper, 'Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in human
kidneys' can be found in the files section on this forum or in the file section
at my Paleoanthropology forum:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/paleoanthropology/

>
> On a different but related issue....
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Elsewhere you write (in bold for emphasis).....
>
> 'Sahelanthropus tchadensis was probably the earliest African
> ancestor of the human species.' (http://tinyurl.com/y8fyhaw)
>
> .....and my question is - why not also an ancestor of chimpanzees?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob.

Sahelanthropus was clearly a hominin and was not closely related to the gorilla
or the chimpanzee. Sahelanthropus had 10 cranio-dental similarities with Homo
and 14 cranio-dental similarities with Australopithecus. But Sahelanthropus only
had 5 cranio-dental similarities with the chimpanzee and the gorilla, 4 with the
orangutan, and 3 with the gibbon.

Sahelanthropus also had 15 cranio-dental similarities with Oreopithecus
bambolii.

Marcel F. Williams

The first Oldowan tools ever discovered were initially associated with
Paranthropus (Zinjanthropus) boisei until Homo habilis remains were finally
discovered at Olduvai. The Oldowan tool technology is the signature lithic
technology of early Homo.

But there is no evidence that australopithecines ever were lithic tool
fabricators. If anything, the australopithecines may have been victims of the
Oldowan tool technology.

It would also be odd for a species with a significantly lower level of
encephalization (Australopithecus including A. garhi) to use the same tool
technology as a totally different species and genera with a significantly higher
level of encephalization (Homo).

The earliest fossil remains of Homo are dated at 2.45 million years ago in
Africa, less than 150,000 years after the earliest Oldowan tools. Its not
surprising that the lithic evidence is a little older than the fossil evidence
since stone tools are usually a lot easier to find in the geologic record.

Marcel F. Williams

--- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Dudman" <ausell@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: newpapyrus
> To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:46 PM
> Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets
>
> Hello Marcel......
> >
> > > What Homo are you referring to that appeared at 2.6 Mya?
> >
> > Homo habilis. The earliest Oldowan tools are dated at up to
> > 2.6 million years ago at Gona in Ethiopia.
> >
> This is interesting.....why do you associate the Gona tools with
> habilis? The garhi fossils are the most temporally and geographically
> proximate to the Gona tools and cut-marked bones were found
> with the garhi fossils......why do you think that habilis is a better
> candidate than garhi as the makers of the Gona tools?
>
> Rob.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: newpapyrus
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

Hello Marcel.....you put forward a number of propositions that
need some further argument than what you offer here......
>
> The only hominin that existed in Africa 5.3 million years ago
> was Ardipithecus......
>
How do you know this? This is very categorical.....if I assume
that you base your assertion on Ardipithecus fossils being the
closest to a 5.3 Mya date, it's not at all clear how you go from
this to the proposition that Ardipithecus was the only hominin that
existed in Africa at that time. Why in this case would an absence
of evidence be evidence of absence.....especially over an area
as large as Africa? As a matter of interest....why 5.3 Mya -
aren't the Ardipithecus fossils dated to 4.4 Mya?
>
> ....So the hominins that would have been trapped the largest
> Afar island would have been ardipithecines that gradually
> evolved into Homo.
>
This is a conclusion drawn from the first proposition that
Ardipithecus was the only hominin in Africa at 5.3 Mya and
it does look a bit like leading the evidence.
>
> 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......
>
I've been unable to find the map you mentioned in a previous
post.....you wrote that it's on page 9 of a paper you authored
and I'd very much appreciate a link. I clearly need to get a
more detailed idea of your Danakil island scenario and any
links to this end would also be appreciated.

On a different but related issue....
>
> 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.
>
Elsewhere you write (in bold for emphasis).....

'Sahelanthropus tchadensis was probably the earliest African
ancestor of the human species.' (http://tinyurl.com/y8fyhaw)

.....and my question is - why not also an ancestor of chimpanzees?

Thanks.

Rob.


----- Original Message -----
From: newpapyrus
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets


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
>

----- Original Message -----
From: newpapyrus
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:46 PM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

Hello Marcel......
>
> > What Homo are you referring to that appeared at 2.6 Mya?
>
> Homo habilis. The earliest Oldowan tools are dated at up to
> 2.6 million years ago at Gona in Ethiopia.
>
This is interesting.....why do you associate the Gona tools with
habilis? The garhi fossils are the most temporally and geographically
proximate to the Gona tools and cut-marked bones were found
with the garhi fossils......why do you think that habilis is a better
candidate than garhi as the makers of the Gona tools?

Rob.


----- Original Message -----
From: newpapyrus
To: AAT@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:46 PM
Subject: [AAT] Re: Wading debate: ape diets

--- 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
>

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-¦ÌCT) 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
> > >
> >
>