Salt glands

"J Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever the possible or past functions of sweating, the most-sweating

mammals besides humans are sea-lions at the shore AFAWK: "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids
aid in heat transfer. On hot days sealions & furseals can often be seen fanning their flippers &
increasing evaporative heat loss at these sites" p.87-88 in AR Hoelzel ed.2002 "Marine mammal
biology" Blackwell. Trying to explain human sweat glands by ancestors running over the hot African
plains, as some traditional paleo-anthropologists still do, is clearly ridiculous: salt & water are
scarse there, and typical savanna mammals use totally different ways of cooling. OTOH, salt & water
are abundant at the shores where sealions & early [censored] lived: early [censored] c 1.8

Quoted message said:

Actually, other primates sweat quite a lot, and in much the same way as

humans.

Don't you even know that sweat glands are a lot more abundant in human skin than in other primates?
Read, eg, Montagna on sweat glands.

Quoted message said:

Phil Nicholls has just recently reposted a lot of info on this (1 Jan 2004

in sci.anthropology.paleo) so I won't clutter the space here with it.

Why don't you reproduce this nonsense here? Afraid?

Quoted message said:

Other mammals, such as horses, are also rather well-known for sweating a

lot, although unlike primates, they don't sweat via eccrine glands. Sea lions do indeed sweat, but
not all that much or all that effectively. I dug out that info by looking at the reference Marc gave
here, and by, unlike Marc, actually doing the work behind reading a couple of sentences in a general
reference. (Would-be paradigm smashers please note: you have to look at primary references; grabbing
a quote from the first book you see just doesn't cut the mustard, it will lead you into error even
if you;re not inclined that way to start with.) So here's the thing: first, the statement that
Terrie Williams and Graham Worthy (the authors of Chapter 3 in the book Marc references above) make
about seals flapping their flippers is "supported" by what can only be an error, since the article
they refer to makes no such claim and is in fact only about how newborn harp seals manage to keep
from freezing since they're born on ice floes in the wintertime (short story on that: they shiver a
lot). But I know from actual sources that seals do in fact wave their flippers when they get hot.
Sweating? Partly; they also have some really nifty blood vessels that shift warm blood out to the
flippers when their bodies are hot, where the flippers act as raditators. That has nothing to do
with sweating, except that it starts up for the same reason.

A lot of blabla for nothing. Try to be concise. The facts in Hoelzel are correct, it has everything
to do with sweating, but as you say the ref is apparently wrong. It should be GA Bartholomew & F
Wilke 1956 "Body Tp in the northern furseal" J.Mammal.37:327. This is not contradicted by anything
that follows. [snipped irrelevancies] The point you completely miss is not that we sweat like
sealions, but that it's stupid to believe that when forest mammals go to the savanna they start
sweating more: the opposite is true in savanna mammals (see below).

Quoted message said:

As for further arguments, I've already outlined in this thread the info

regarding the fact that in humans neither sweat glands or tear ducts can have evolved to maintain
homeostasis, and that this necessary job is handled in humans by the kidneys, just as it is in every
other mammal on earth. Let me point out that in all marine mammals, such as the sea lions which Marc
refers to here, have very large and/or heavily lobulated kidneys to deal with the salt load in that
environment. Humans, of course, do not, which is further evidence that they did not evolve in such
an environment.

Again you miss the point. Most mammals, eg, most primates & rodents, many carnivores, rabbit, horse,
camel, giraffe & most ruminants except large bovids, have 1 papilla in each kidney. Chimps have this
papilla subdivided into 6-7 smaller ones. Some populations of capuchin & spider monkeys have multi-
papillary kidneys. Humans have 10-12 papillae in every kidney, and frequently an extra (third or
fourth) kidney. If human ancestors had gone to the savanna as your ridiculous alternative to our
waterside scenario states, humans would have had less papillae than chimps.

Marc Verhaegen

onelist.comAATOpen ↗

allserv.rug.ac.beVerhaegen.htmlOpen ↗

J Moore :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I was talking about bipedal animals, I was talking predominantly about hopping
animals (because of connection between their bipedality - holding forces in axial
direction - and ours.). I mentioned only penguins of all birds because they are bipedal
as well as straight (vertical). Their legs are below their bodies. This is just like us,
and not like all the other birds. Is this called comparative evidence? They aren't like
other birds. They are SIMILAR to us. So, you could say that they aren't like all the
other birds, and they are similar to us because they accomodate similar conditions. As I
saw from pictures (I don't have info), plunge-diving birds also tend to be more vertical
in posture. And for them you could also say that they aren't completly vertical because
they are birds.

No, penguins are NOT similar to us, and I'm not talking about the many ways they are dissimilar
other than their walking posture and their pelvis. They do not hold their legs in a very straight
line directly under them as they walk, but rather more like most quadrupedal mammals do when they
walk bipedally (like monkeys for instance). From their hips, their upper leg is generally held
forward and bent a lot at the knee; so the lower part of their legs are vertical -- to see this
you have to look at a skeleton. When you do, you also see that their pelvis is also extremely
unlike ours; for one thing, like most swimming animals, it's very narrow, while ours and that of
our hominid ancestors is rather wide. (In fact, the pelvis of a penguin isn't all that different
from that of a pigeon, although other parts -- esp. the breastbone and wing/flippers are quite
different due to the different needs of flying and swimming creatures.) OTOH, we have near
relatives we do hold their legs in the manner you think penguins do (gibbons and siamangs, and to
an extent, orangs and spider monkeys). I'm not saying that we necessarily had ancestors who
behaved just like those apes and monkeys, but doesn't that seem far more likely than us being like
penguins, especially when you consider that in reality, as opposed to the musings of AAT
proponents, penguins's pelvises and walking posture are very different from ours?

I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. Yes, I've seen their
skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped mammals, nor like monkeys. It is obvious,
they are bipedal fish (evolved from birds). And, although we do have near relatives who can
hold their legs in the manner you think could lead to obligate bipedalism, they are still
very far from bipedalism. And yet, some other animals are bipedal at rest, which, BTW, as
you've said yourself, don't have anything with gibbons, siamangs, etc.. It is obvious that
being able to stand occasionaly on hind legs (a goat can do that too, and a lot of other
animlas) isn't what is needed for bipedalism. What is needed for bipedalism is what I
described. Being adapted to acquire forces in axial direction. That is it.

Quoted message said:

You're making the mistake of taking what AAT proponents say as if it were true, when frankly, you
just can't rely on their research. I have to write up a post now regarding Marc Verhaegen's "sweat
and sea lions" claim, which is phoney even though he claims to have researched it. Relying on
people like that for your information will leave you awash in "false facts" and the poorer for it.

Discussing with them is always very interesting. Yet, I am thinking with my own head. I have
Elaine's latest book at home, but I opened it only once. I am afraid like hell to touch it,
to not come under the influence (although, I am clearly under the influence of some other
AAT book that I've read 12 years ago). As you've seen, I only used your article for 'salt
glands' thing. This is the way I am working. Never-the-less, AAT community is full of smart
people, and I am more than glad to be in their company.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I bet, although on land we are much weaker, in water we could drown a leopard. Even if it bites
us, we could still keep it in water until it loses air and dies, and we could keep our head out
of water. We would be wounded, but leopard would be dead. This is the basic idea of my scenario.
We also need distance if we feed on shellfish (the only meat we can eat uncooked).

Another wrong statement. Humans actually do eat various types of meat raw, especially various
internal organs, although as a rule, we eat most meats cooked.

I went through fierce discussion about this (in AAT community, as well). Did some research,
tried a lot of supposedly "raw" meat we are eating. Internal organs are eaten after hunt,
purely for ceremonlial reasons, nothing else (you can eat your shoe for ceremonial reason).
Inuits are eating those parts also after hunting, probably because they are hungry, and they
don't have the means to set up fire.

Quoted message said:

And don't try that with a leopard, really -- it's not a good plan, to say the least. In fact, it's
common for some predators, large cats among them, to drive their prey into the water where the
cat, because of the way it can leap, has a big advantage. As a hominid, one would probably be far
better doing almost anything other than running into water to escape a terrestrial predator.

A kangaroo is doing this. It is suppose to know better than you. It was in those situations.
A leopard is just a floating meat if it cannot reach bottom. Can it leap if it doesn't have
something below its legs? Even if it can, it is pale to what it can do on land. Actually,
the main predator I set for hominids, are sabre toothed cats. Anyway, they aren't adapted to
water. They even cannot bite, or tear properly in water. Compare teeth of aquatic predators
(crocs, sharks), and the way they are tearing flesh, to teeth of terrestrial ones. They are
completly different. Terrestrial predators are adapted to do terrestrial hunting. Hunting in
water is very different.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A proboscis monkey's nose? It is definitely sure that we have similar noses. Our noses can
serve two aquatic purposes. The other one is a diving bell. Try to dive upside-down, and
air will leak out of your nose. A diving bell saves air in nose.

No, proboscis monkey's nose are not the same as humans, although they have a superficial
resemblance. I know this has been pointed out in newsgroups you frequent, so really you have no
excuse for repeating this inaccurate statement. And the proboscis monkey's nose does not act as a
"diving bell", no matter how many times AAT proponents repeat that inaccurate statement -- you
need to learn for yourself, or you will continue to be taken in by people repeating these "false
facts". The nose of the proboscis monkey is

Quoted message said:

probocis monkeys dive and swim, you'll see that the position their noses are in as a rule would
drive water up their noses, if that actually were a problem. However, as I mentioned before,
simply holding one's breath keeps water out of primates' noses, no matter which way it's oriented.
The orientation of the nostrils is similar in all Old World monkeys, btw -- that's how they got
their scientific name, in fact.

I think you are wrong here. Lenghtening nose always helps in aquatic situations. BTW, I was
talking about female's nose. It wouldn't be strange

are in aquatical environment (crocs are their only predator, this is pretty aquatical. Predators
shape you.). It could simply be that longer noses help when they jump into water. Or whatever. A
respiratory adaptation is logical in aquatical environment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bottom divers doesn't have to be adapted for speed. Speed in water is only needed if you
are chasing fish.

Or escaping aquatic predators, which even the fastest Olympic swimmers (in the fastest events)
would be utterly incapable of, even if they spotted them before they attacked, which one usually
doesn't.

We don't have sea predators. For us, sea is safe. Remember summer days?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our speed is less than that of other, non-terrestrial apes.

You know, it bothers me when I continually see statements like this from AAT proponents with
absolutely no evidence to back it up. Is it true? It certainly would not be true of all but
possibly chimpanzees and bonobos, but even there -- do you have any evidence for this statement
whatever?

No. I think I've read something, but I definitely wouldn't search for it. Why? Because even
you are mentioning chimps and bonobos. They are our closest relatives. No way that we would
become even slower than them in terrestrial environment. Remember, a biped can be fast if it
needs to. So, the same as with straight posture. A straight bipeds are able to sustain
forces from axial direction. We should be the only exception. A primate becomes faster in
terrestrial environment. We should be the only exception. Those two things are basic
recquirements for those things. And we shouldn't be able to accomodate this, and still be
able to be straight terrestrial bipedals. Why? If you ask me, your book about dismissing AAT
is becoming thicker and thicker. Every new day brings another clue against savanna, and
another clue for AAT. You can try to dismiss AAT things one by one, but you cannot do this
with them all at once. I believe that it is time for YOU, to start to accept that all those
things that look so similar to aquatic adaptations, really could arise from those same
adaptations >2mya. -- Mario

"Marc Verhaegen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"William Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The essence is this: you are incapable of explaining why humans & chimps

differ. A coastal past in our history (probably end-Plio-, begin-Pleistocene, for some time)
nicely explains a lot of these differences. Alister Hardy in his paper "Was Man more aquatic in
the past?" (NS 1960) described how a sea-side life - beach-combing, wading, swimming, collecting
coconuts, fruits, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains
many human traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna
scenarios do: very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb
- totally unexpected in the savanna), excellent breath-hold control (up to minutes), greater
diving skills, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing
skills, reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, high
needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.

Quoted message said:

One of the basic problems, as J. Moore pointed out, is that we are not in

fact particularly well adapted to a fully aquatic existence.

Who speaks about fully aquatic?? Seaside. Hardy: "more aquatic."

As noted in my previous follow, I can agree with seaside - but that then falls far short of
explaining the wide range of features that AAT purports to explain.

(snip stuff on fully aquatic existence)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We are so poorly adapted to truly deep diving that the well-developed

vocality is unlikely to be due to the development of conscious breathing control

1) I didn't say that, see the scenario above. There's no doubt IMO vocality as in gibbons played
an important role in the development of human vocality. Otters (waterside) are more vocalic
that weasels. Arboreal mammals are usu. more vocalic than related species in more open milieus.
Savanna mammals generally have less variation in vocality.

Quoted message said:

, as it may be in birds and truly aquatic mammals. It is more likely that

the breath-hold control is a byproduct of speech.

Quoted message said:

Then you can't explain speech. You can't explain why human can speak & why chimps couldn't evolve
this skill.

Chimps (or rather a very near relative) _did_ evolve this skill. We are the result. Read "The
Symbolic Species" for an excellent discussion of this topic.

Quoted message said:

Having said the above, a quick look at real estate prices for

Quoted message said:

waterfront

property makes a convincing case without any other evidence that we are adapted to life _near_ the
water. Given our relatively high behavioral plasticity, even a relatively recent (0.8 ma would
qualify as recent in my book) period of development primarily in a coastal setting might well make
sense in explaining our love for water. However this will not account for bipedalism

Quoted message said:

Evolved gradually: first (hominoid) wading-climbing in swamp forests (short legged bent-knees-bent-hips-
bipedality, still partial suspensory), later (seaside early [censored]) loss of climbing & evolution of
straight body (for streamlining, regular swimming), still later (sapiens LCA) exclusively walking.

I don't buy this, maybe partly because I don't like swamps, but it is at least an interesting
possibility for explaining the development of bipedality in humans (at least until you get to the
straight body part which is hogwash since we are relatively bad at swimming).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

, hairlessness (have you looked at otters and seals?

Quoted message said:

These species are not tropical. The very large male elephant seals & Steller sealions & walruses
are furless in cold environments, but other pinnipeds & also sea otters are too small to be
hairless. A tropical middle-sized semi-aquatic is the baburusa: furless.

Sea lions (250 lb) too small to be hairless? How about the Hawaiian monk seal - it is tropical. And
the capybara is a tropical middle-sized semi- aquatic, and it has lots of hair. Meanwhile elephants
and rhinoceroses are non-aquatic but hairless. The point is that an aquatic existence does not
necessarily lead to hairlessness, nor is hairlessness evidence for an aquatic existence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

), brain size, control, long legs, vocality, or tool use.

All not unexpected at the seaside (cf. tool using sea otters, long legs for wading, etc.)

And how about those tool using seals, as opposed to the chimps that are incapable of tool use. And
how about those wading giraffes, not to mention all those other mammals that have adopted bipedalism
as a result of their semi-aquatic existence - the babirusa, capybara, otters, water buffalo, beaver
... oh darn, _none_ of them are bipedal.

As I said previously, humans show evidence of development in a shoreline habitat - but it only
explains a few of the differences that set us apart from our nearest relatives.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Quoted message said:

A lot of blabla for nothing. Try to be concise. The facts in Hoelzel are correct, it has
everything to do with sweating, but as you say the ref is apparently wrong. It should be GA
Bartholomew & F Wilke 1956 "Body Tp in

the

Quoted message said:

northern furseal" J.Mammal.37:327. This is not contradicted by anything

that

Quoted message said:

follows. [snipped irrelevancies] The point you completely miss is not

that

Quoted message said:

we sweat like sealions, but that it's stupid to believe that when forest mammals go to the savanna
they start sweating more: the opposite is true

in

Quoted message said:

savanna mammals (see below).

In a way it is for nothing; that is it adds nothing to knowledge of human evolution save to point
out that the claim you've been making about sea lions and sweat is wrong and is shown to be wrong
using the sources you claimed supported it. It's kind of sad that this has to be done (I'll never
get that afternoon back, but then I like libraries) but I had to point out that your much repeated
claim had no basis in fact, despite your offering a citation which you claimed supported it. I've
dealt with the Bartholomew and Wilkie paper on my cite. They did say they saw the animals wave their
flippers but as evidence of sweat itself offered only an experiment with frying a dead seal's
flipper under a heat lamp until it blistered. These other cites which I summarised show through
actual measurements in experiments that sea lions do indeed sweat, but ineffectively, which directly
contradicts your claim. (In fact most of a sea lion's heat loss through the flippers is through
radiation using the blood vessels that adjust blood flow to the flippers according to heat load --
alas for the sea lions, even this is not effective enough to get rid of the heat they need to lose.)

I am not here making any claim for any "scenario", "alternative" or otherwise. I am merely examining
the evidence for your scenario to see if it makes sense and is supported by evidence. It doesn't and
it isn't. Even if all of "conventional" paleoanthropology was shown to be in error -- even if every
single fact was shown to be wrong -- it wouldn't mean that your theory was therefore right. It
wouldn't even suggest that your theory was likely to be right -- your theory has to stand on its own
merits. All I'm doing is looking at the evidence (doing work, btw, that you should've done yourself)
to see if your theory stands on its own merits, and it doesn't.

JMoore
***
For a scientific critique of the "aquatic ape" theory, go to www.aquaticape.org

Kinda answered your own question there, didn't you Marc?

--

For a scientific critque of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquatic.org

Marc Verhaegen <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"J Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have to write up a post now regarding Marc Verhaegen's "sweat and sea

lions" claim, which is phoney even though he claims to have researched it.

You are sick, Moore!
Where did I claim that??
Liar!

The most-themoregulatorily-sweating mammals besides humans are sea-lions

at

Quoted message said:

the shore AFAWK: "sweat glands on the flippers of otariids aid in heat
transfer. On hot days sealions & furseals can often be seen fanning their
flippers & increasing evaporative heat loss at these sites" p.87-88 in AR
Hoelzel ed.2002 "Marine mammal biology" Blackwell.

"William Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The essence is this: you are incapable of explaining why humans &

chimps differ. A coastal past in our history (probably end-Plio-, begin-Pleistocene, for some time)
nicely explains a lot of these differences. Alister Hardy in his paper "Was Man more aquatic in the
past?" (NS 1960) described how a sea-side life - beach-combing, wading, swimming, collecting
coconuts, fruits, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many
human> traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios
do: very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb - totally unexpected in the savanna), excellent breath-
hold control (up to minutes), greater diving skills, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness &
tool use, reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs,
more linear body build, high needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.

Quoted message said:

As noted in my previous follow, I can agree with seaside - but that then

falls far short of explaining the wide range of features that AAT purports to explain.

?? You are ill-informed: Hardy hypothesised a seaside past, see his paper 1960 "Was man more aquatic
in the past?" New Sci.7:642-5.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We are so poorly adapted to truly deep diving that the well-developed

vocality is unlikely to be due to the development of conscious breathing control

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) I didn't say that, see the scenario above. There's no doubt IMO

vocality as in gibbons played an important role in the development of human vocality. Otters
(waterside) are more vocalic that weasels. Arboreal mammals are usu. more vocalic than related
species in more open milieus. Savanna mammals generally have less variation in vocality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

, as it may be in birds and truly aquatic mammals. It is more likely

that the breath-hold control is a byproduct of speech.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you can't explain speech. You can't explain why human can speak &

why chimps couldn't evolve this skill.

Quoted message said:

Chimps (or rather a very near relative) _did_ evolve this skill. We are

the result. Read "The Symbolic Species" for an excellent discussion of this topic.

?? You don't claim chimps speak, I hope??

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... However this will not account for bipedalism

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Evolved gradually: first (hominoid) wading-climbing in swamp forests

(short legged bent-knees-bent-hips-bipedality, still partial suspensory), later (seaside early [censored])
loss of climbing & evolution of straight body (for streamlining, regular swimming), still later
(sapiens LCA) exclusively walking.

Quoted message said:

I don't buy this, maybe partly because I don't like swamps, but it is at

least an interesting possibility for explaining the development of bipedality in humans (at least
until you get to the straight body part which is hogwash since we are relatively bad at swimming).

- Please note: wading-climbing in swamp forests is not about humans: it was much earlier: it's about
hominoids.
- What is "hogwash"? Not in my dictionary.
- Humans swim well enough to collect shellfish by diving, see Polynesians, Japanese & Korean Ama
etc. No doubt a straight posture is advantageous here. Do you have a reason why sapiens ancestors
would not have done this parttime when they spread along the coasts?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

, hairlessness (have you looked at otters and seals?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These species are not tropical. The very large male elephant seals &

Steller sealions & walruses are furless in cold environments, but other pinnipeds & also sea otters
are too small to be hairless. A tropical middle-sized semi-aquatic is the baburusa: furless.

Quoted message said:

Sea lions (250 lb) too small to be hairless? How about the Hawaiian monk

seal - it is tropical.

Yes. Thanks for the example. I hadn't realised this. If Hawaiian monk seals are exclusively
tropical, my idea that humans & babirusas are naked because they're semi-aquatic & tropical & medium-
sized is wrong.

Quoted message said:

And the capybara is a tropical middle-sized semi-aquatic, and it has lots

of hair.

Yes, but smaller than humans & babirusas. I thought c 50-100 kg was the limit: humans & babirusas
are partly haired.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile elephants and rhinoceroses are non-aquatic but hairless.

So?

Quoted message said:

The point is that an aquatic existence does not necessarily lead to

hairlessness

Full aquaticism leads to furlessness (exception: sea otters).

Quoted message said:

, nor is hairlessness evidence for an aquatic existence.

Nobody ever claimed this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

), brain size, control, long legs, vocality, or tool use.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All not unexpected at the seaside (cf. tool using sea otters, long legs

for wading, etc.)

Quoted message said:

And how about those tool using seals, as opposed to the chimps that are

incapable of tool use.

Please no simplistinc thinking: if A leads to B, than doesn't mean that B leads to A. Our scenario
is not that our ancestors were seals, but that our ancestors c 2 Ma spreadl along the coasts.

Quoted message said:

And how about those wading giraffes, not to mention all those other

mammals that have adopted bipedalism as a result of their semi-aquatic existence - the babirusa,
capybara, otters, water buffalo, beaver ... oh darn, _none_ of them are bipedal.

This is too stupid to answer. Again: for the Xth time: IMO our bipedalism evolved gradually: first
(hominoid) wading-climbing in swamp forests (short legged bent-knees-bent-hips-bipedality, still
partial suspensory), later (seaside early [censored]) loss of climbing & evolution of straight body (for
streamlining, regular swimming), still later (sapiens LCA) exclusively walking.

Have you written a book, Bill? Which?

--Marc

William Morse :

Quoted message said:

Marc Verhaegen :

Quoted message said:

William Morse : Having said the above, a quick look at real estate prices for

Quoted message said:

waterfront

property makes a convincing case without any other evidence that we are adapted to life _near_
the water. Given our relatively high behavioral plasticity, even a relatively recent (0.8 ma
would qualify as recent in my book) period of development primarily in a coastal setting might
well make sense in explaining our love for water. However this will not account for bipedalism

Quoted message said:

Evolved gradually: first (hominoid) wading-climbing in swamp forests (short legged bent-knees-bent-hips-
bipedality, still partial suspensory), later (seaside early [censored]) loss of climbing & evolution
of straight body (for streamlining, regular swimming), still later (sapiens LCA) exclusively
walking.

I don't buy this, maybe partly because I don't like swamps, but it is at least an interesting
possibility for explaining the development of bipedality in humans (at least until you get to the
straight body part which is hogwash since we are relatively bad at swimming).

My idea (which is the topic of this discussion) is saying that we became streamlined
because of plunge diving (just like plunge diving birds are very straight when they are
plunge diving).

Quoted message said:

As I said previously, humans show evidence of development in a shoreline habitat - but it only
explains a few of the differences that set us apart from our nearest relatives. Bill Morse

Mario Petrinovich sent me his post via e-mail, but agreed to my suggestion
that this debate should be continued in the public forum it started in. In
case he hasn't posted his post to the newsgroupo yet, I've appended the
entire text of it at the bottom of my post here so people can check the
accuracy of my excerpts of his post:

Quoted message said:

What relly is ridiculous, is you trying to ridiculing me on this. Claiming that penguins
are birds is as much ridiculous as claiming that we are apes, although we are humans, and
weren't apes for so long. Or, that dolphins aren't fish because they are flipping their
tail upside-down instead of left-right. They are functionaly fish, and this is what we are
talking about.

They are not "functionally fish", they are birds who are very adept at swimming, to the point we
would probably call them aquatic, certainly semi-aquatic. Looking at only a few superficial features
and behaviors (and ignoring the majority of their features and behaviors) is the only way you can
even approach calling them fishlike (and even that is so far-fetched I don't know how to point it
out without insulting you, since you seem insulted by my pointing it out already). They are far more
like birds than they are like fish, which is why they are classified as birds and why no one
disputes this classification (except, apparently, you).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. Yes, I've seen their
skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped mammals, nor like monkeys. It is
obvious, they are bipedal fish

(evolved

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from birds).

They are birds, Mario; saying what you are here just makes your position seem even sillier than it
does already, and I would think you don't want to do that.

Quoted message said:

Interesting. You are saying that what we need in water is leaping?

No, what I said several times, and I thought pretty clearly, is that large cats will commonly
chase their prey into water to catch it, and that this wo rks well for them because they leap
through the water while the water slows down their prey. This means that running into water isn't
a good way to get away from large cats, contrary to your statements. Your suggestion that we
always dived into deep water presupposes that we were always very near water that is very deep at
the shoreline, which rids the "aquatic ape" of the ability to be the shoreline wader that most
proponents now want it to be.

On proboscis monkeys and their noses:

Quoted message said:

I was talking about jumping into water. When they are in panic

(and

Quoted message said:

they are in panic in life threating situations, someone would presume)

they

Quoted message said:

are jumping into water. Life threating situations shape you.

When they jump into the water they jump feet first with their heads held in a position that would
drive water up their nostrils if that actually were a problem -- as I explained it isn't actually a
problem if you hold your breath -- but the actual behavior of proboscis monkeys jumping into water
is not what you imagine it to be; they don't dive or hold their heads down.

Quoted message said:

When was that I claimed that we see predators? Certainly not in

the

Quoted message said:

last year or so (but I think I never did this. I usually don't claim such uncertain things). I
also never did mention crocs. And I am swimming safe

in

You said it in this newsgroup on the 15th of this month; that was 4 days ago: "In water predator,
although seen at same distance, need to swim towards you. You have plenty of time to exchange
informations."

This is incorrect information; it's wrong. This is known stuff, well known, and in fact I have many
examples on my site with the references to the literature that supports what I'm saying. Further,
although on land some predators no doubt attack without being seen first, or seen to late to do
anything about it, that is almost certainly not the approach that our ancestors took with
terrestrial predators, since they probably reacted to them much as chimps do now. Again, my site has
lots of info on this as well, also supported by references to the relevant literature.

Quoted message said:

Adriatic sea, no problem. Along with millions of others. Why, indeed,

South

Quoted message said:

Africans are spending on shark nets. Didn't those mothers with their children heard about
sharks? What is so much attracting them to put their beloved children in such a dangerous
conditions? Listening to you, I would presume that they wouldn't go into sea even if this can
save their lives.

You claimed that for humans there are no sea predators and that "for us, sea is safe". I pointed out
that even for us, with our advanced technology, life guards, and having for several centuries
decimated our predators with guns and nets, we still get attacked by aquatic predators. And these
predators attack in both shallow and deep water, and we usually don't see them before they attack,
even when we are in groups. These predators also don't respond to counter-attack as a rule, which
makes them even more dangerous and rather different from terrestrial predators. For our early
hominid ancestors, who were smaller and had no technology to speak of (rocks and branches), and who
weren't able to wipe huge numbers of their predators from the face of the earth as we have, this
would be even more dangerous. This is no doubt why we see that animals (chimps) who are very like
our ancestors (ie., of medium size with slow reproductive rates) can exist as terrestrial animals,
but we see no such animal (ie., like us, of medium size with slow reproductive rates) in an aquatic
environment anywhere in the world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

clue for AAT. You can try to dismiss AAT things one by one, but you cannot do this with them
all at once. I believe that it is time for YOU, to start to accept that all those things that
look so similar to aquatic adaptations, really could arise from those same adaptations >2mya.
-- Mario

One can only disprove individual points one by one, and as you go through the AAT litany, each point
falls apart when you look at the evidence. That AAT list of "aquatic traits" has the rather large
problem of containing myriad items that are simply false. In science one cannot accept things that
are demonstrably false, so I decline your invitation to do so.

JMoore

--

For a scientific critque of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquatic.org

*********** appended entire post from Mario:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mario, you really have to ... what can I say. Penguins are not fish,

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are birds. Don't you see how ridiculous you sound when say they're

fish?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They aren't even like fish. I mean come on. Even allowing for

hyperbole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this is a ridiculous statement.

What relly is ridiculous, is you trying to ridiculing me on this.
Claiming that penguins are birds is as much ridiculous as claiming that we
are apes, although we are humans, and weren't apes for so long. Or, that
dolphins aren't fish because they are flipping their tail upside-down
instead of left-right. They are functionaly fish, and this is what we are
talking about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their
pelvises.
Yes, I've seen their skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped
mammals, nor like monkeys. It is obvious, they are bipedal fish

(evolved

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from birds).

About killing large cats in water.

Quoted message said:

A kangaroo is doing this. It is suppose to know better than

you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It
was in those situations. A leopard is just a floating meat if it

cannot

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Kangaroos do not live in places with leopards. Again,. this is common
knowledge, not arcane scienctific data. Don't you realise you sound
ridiculous when you state things that even grade school kids know is
wrong?
I really don't mean to be mean in pointing this out, but really. Also
note,
when you start talking about dingos rather than leopards, that kangaroos
move by leaping, which really helps in moving quickly through shallow
water.

You mean from shallow into deeper. Well, by plunge diving into

water

Quoted message said:

you also are fastly into deeper water. That way you can use your potential
and kinetic energy to gain distance.

Quoted message said:

That's why big cats, which can attack with leaping bounds, often chase
their
prey into water to catch them. And it is a fact, which you can even see
from watching nature shows on TV, that large cats regularly attack and
kill
their prey by chasing them into water. I'll grant you that if we were
trying to get away from dingos (or possibly hunting dogs), and if we

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

leap like kangaroos or large cats, we might escape by going into

water --

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but I shouldn't really have to point out that we can't do that.

Interesting. You are saying that what we need in water is leaping?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lenghtening nose always helps in aquatic
situations. BTW, I was talking about female's nose. It wouldn't be
strange

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they
are in aquatical environment (crocs are their only predator, this is
pretty
aquatical. Predators shape you.). It could simply be that longer noses
help
when they jump into water. Or whatever. A respiratory adaptation is
logical in aquatical environment.

Female and young proboscis monkeys do not hold their noses in a position
that would tend to make water wash over it. That would be a face down
position, like the "crawl" position in human swimming; they hold their
noses
in the position we would a "dog paddle" which if you would look at
pictures
of them swimming you would see leaves their nostrils facing essentially
forward in the water, the opposite of what you are imagining them doing.

I was talking about jumping into water. When they are in panic

(and

Quoted message said:

they are in panic in life threating situations, someone would presume)

they

Quoted message said:

are jumping into water. Life threating situations shape you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We don't have sea predators. For us, sea is safe. Remember
summer days?

Again, are you completely unaware that even modern day humans, with our
technology and our having nearly wiped out many large aquatic predators,
we
still have problems with aquatic predators? Why does the government of
South Africa spend all that money on shark nets around their swimming
beaches? Are they just crazy in your view? The fact is that even

today,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when we have far more effective anti-predator techniques at our disposal
than any of our past ancestors, we still get killed by crocs and sharks.
Further, contrary to your claim that we'd just see them coming from

afar,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

most attacking aquatic predators aren't seen until they attack. For
instance (and this is typical) the boy who was attacked in Florida last
year
was in shallow water (about knee-deep) and the shark wasn't seen until

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

had atatcked him. Crocs do the same; I have a typical example on my

site

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of
a woman in Australia who was standing, with two companions, in

ankle-deep

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

water who was atatcked and killed by a croc that none of them saw until

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

grabbed her. This is typical of these predators.

When was that I claimed that we see predators? Certainly not in

the

Quoted message said:

last year or so (but I think I never did this. I usually don't claim such
uncertain things). I also never did mention crocs. And I am swimming safe

in

Quoted message said:

Adriatic sea, no problem. Along with millions of others. Why, indeed,

South

Quoted message said:

Africans are spending on shark nets. Didn't those mothers with their
children heard about sharks? What is so much attracting them to put their
beloved children in such a dangerous conditions? Listening to you, I would
presume that they wouldn't go into sea even if this can save their lives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you ask me, your book about dismissing AAT is becoming
thicker
and thicker. Every new day brings another clue against savanna, and
another
clue for AAT. You can try to dismiss AAT things one by one, but you
cannot
do this with them all at once. I believe that it is time for YOU, to
start
to accept that all those things that look so similar to aquatic
adaptations,
really could arise from those same adaptations >2mya. -- Mario

First you have to have things that DO look like aquatic adaptations, and
the
things that AAT proponents point to just don't; I detail many of these
things on my site. And second you have to ask yourself why humans have
none
of the actual ubitquitous aquatic and/or marine traits (developed via
convergent evolution) found in mammals. NONE.

Unfortunately, I don't have time, right now, to discuss anything
except our straight posture thing. Sorry about this. -- Mario

"J Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kinda answered your own question there, didn't you Marc?

?? Yet found an argument against our scenario, Moore? Alister Hardy ("Was Man more aquatic in the
past?" NS 1960) described how a sea-side life - beach-combing, wading, swimming, collecting
coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds etc. - explains many human
traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better than dry savanna scenarios do: very
large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing control, greater diving skills, well-
developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of climbing skills, reduction of fur,
more subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build, high needs of iodine, sodium & poly-
unsaturated fatty acids etc. Hardy was wrong in thinking his seaside phase happened ~10 Ma. More
likely it happened during the Ice Ages: early Pleistocene [censored] fossils or tools have been found in
Israel, Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java. When sea levels dropped,
H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean (pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts (erectus).
Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some 120 m below the present sea level, so many
fossil & archeological finds show the inland [censored] populations that entered the continents along
the rivers & wetlands. In spite of this, [censored] remains (but not australopithecine) have frequently
been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the
Old World (eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could only be
reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma).

Marc Verhaegen onelist.comAATOpen ↗
allserv.rug.ac.beVerhaegen.htmlOpen ↗

Marc Verhaegen said:

Quoted message said:

Phil Nicholls has just recently reposted a lot of info on this (1 Jan 2004

in sci.anthropology.paleo) so I won't clutter the space here with it.

Why don't you reproduce this nonsense here? Afraid?

I guess Marc defines nonsense as stuff based on articles he won't read.

However, since you asked nicely: (apologies to sci.bio.evolution folks who don't think this is the
place to discuss the AAH and I'm not, but I am providing some information on sweating as it occurs
in primates).

Proposition: Sweating in humans is an evolution anomaly that can only be explained within the
context of convergent evolution as put forth by Morgan in her various books.

----------------------------------------
PRIMATE SWEATING

". . . the chief mystery does not lie in any one of these ANOMALIES [emphasis added], not even
the wonderful brain or the dexterous hands or the miracle of speech. It lies in the sheer number
and variety of the ways in which we differ from out closest relatives in the animal kingdom."
(Morgan, 1990)

One of Morgan's anomalies is eccrine (as opposed to apocrine) gland sweating. Eccrine glands are
associated with hair follicles while apocrine glands open directly onto the skin. There are other
differences as well.

Is eccrine sweat really anomalous?

In Prosimians and New World monkeys the apocrine glands are more numerous. In Old World Monkeys the
distribution is at a ratio of 1:1,
1:2 or 1:3 depending on the body region sampled (Sokolov,
2:160-169). For the rhesus monkeys, Sokolov remarks that "Except for the lips and ischila
callosities the eccrine glands are plentiful." (Sokolov, 1982, p.165). Johnson and Elozondo
(1974) note that the distribution of eccrine glands in the rhesus monkey is identical to that
observed in humans.

For the chimpanzee, Sokolov notes "All of the features of chimpanzee eccrine glands are similar to
those of humans. In the immature female the apocrine sweat glands are much smaller in size than in
the male. These are fewer in number than the eccrine glands." (Sokolov, 1982, p.169).

Any sweating that occurs in primates is eccrine sweat (see Robertshaw, 1985 for an overview of
sweating in primates vs non-primates. For a look at the research on sweating in primates, see Hiley,
1976; Johnson and Elizondo, 1974 and Newman et. al., 1970). The first primates were probably
nocturnal, as are many of the living prosimians today. Nocturnal primates do not really need to
worry about overheating. They discharge excess body heat by panting. As a result, the apocrine
glands in Prosimians did not develop a thermo- regulatory role. As primates evolved and anthropoids
appeared and moved into diurnal niches, they continued to pant until two evolutionary pressures
forced a change -- increase in body size and increase in relative brain size.

As body size increases the number of eccrine sweat glands also seems to increase (Robertshaw, 1985).
As brain size increases, the size of the nasal sinuses is reduced. Since in closed-mouth panters
this is the place where most of the heat exchange takes place, the increase in brain size produced a
need for an alternative heat rejection system.

Why eccrine glands when apocrine glands are the gland of choice in other mammals? The answer, I
believe, lies in the neurophysiology of sweating. Apocrine glands are controlled by the sympathetic
nervous system. The neurons which control apocrine glands use noradrenline as their
neurotransmitter. Eccrine glands are also controlled by the sympathetic nervous system but unlike
apocrine glands they are cholinergic, i.e. use acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter. The difference
may be compared to playing a piano. Noradrenline works like the pedals, affecting the action of all
the tones being played. Acetylcholine is like the individual piano keys. Cholinergic neurons are
employed where fine control over the effector organs is required. Anthropoid primates need a greater
degree of control over their heat rejection systems because of their larger brains, which are very
sensative to temperature changes.

This is particularly important in [censored] sapiens. Apocrine sweat occurs in bursts which saturate the
skin quickly. The amount of sweat they produce cannot be regulated nor can their action be sustained
for any period of time (Robertshaw, 1985). This is ideal for an animal that needs to cool off
quickly after a period of brief intense activity but are not suited to the task of regulating body
temperature over an extended period of time.

To sum up, eccrine sweating is not anomalous. It is consistant with the trend observed in
anthropoids, established long before the the hominid/pongid split. Apocrine sweat glands never
developed a thermoregulatory role in primates. Eccrine sweating makes makes good sense of
neurophysiological grounds.

-------------------------------

Bligh, J (1967) A thesis concerning the process of secretion and discharge of sweat. Environmental
Search 1:28-51.

Hiley DA (1976) The thermoregulatory responses of the galago (Galago crassicaudatus), the
baboon (Papio cynocephalus) and the chimpanzee (Pan satyrus) to heat stress. Journal of
Physiology, 254:657-670.

Johnson, GS and Elizondo, R (1974) Eccrine sweat gland in Macaca mulatta: physiology, histochemistry
and distribution. Journal of Applied Physiology 37:814-820

Morgan, E. (1990) Scars of Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newman, CM; Cummings, EG; Miller; Wright, H (1970) Thermoregulatory responses of the baboon to heat
stress and scopolamine. Physiologists 13:271-285.

Robertshaw, D (1985) Sweat and heat exchange in man and other mammals. Journal of Human Evolution
14: 63-73.

Sokolov, VE (1982) Mammal Skin. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Now I want you to note
that at no time did I mention sweating as an adaptation to savannas. I said that it occurred in
response to (1) body size increase and (2) brain size increase. Thus sweating is not tied to
bipedalism but rather to brain expansion.

Dean Falk proposed an interesting idea concerning the connection between brain size and bipedalism.
She suggested that bipedalism released a constraint on the evolution of brain size, changing the way
in which blood drains from the brain to a pattern that permits more efficient heat removal.

This suggests a scenerio of bipedalism --> bigger brain--> more efficient thermoregulatory sweating
--> bigger brain -->loss of body hair --> even bigger brains.

It is very likely that many of the so-called anomalous characterisitcs of modern humans did not
appear at the same time and some may have appeared only in the last 100 000 years or so.

"Marc Verhaegen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"William Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> We are so poorly adapted to truly deep diving that the well-developed

vocality is unlikely to be due to the development of conscious breathing control

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) I didn't say that, see the scenario above. There's no doubt IMO

vocality as in gibbons played an important role in the development of human vocality. Otters
(waterside) are more vocalic that weasels. Arboreal mammals are usu. more vocalic than related
species in more open milieus. Savanna mammals generally have less variation in vocality.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>, as it may be in birds and truly aquatic mammals. It is more likely

that the breath-hold control is a byproduct of speech.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you can't explain speech. You can't explain why human can speak &

why chimps couldn't evolve this skill.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chimps (or rather a very near relative) _did_ evolve this skill. We are

the result. Read "The Symbolic Species" for an excellent discussion of this topic.

Quoted message said:

?? You don't claim chimps speak, I hope??

I think we have a semantic misunderstanding. What you may have meant to say is that I can't explain
why the lineage that led to chimps from our last common ancestor _didn't_ evolve this skill
(speech).My point was that humans evolved from something very like chimps, which implies that chimps
_could_ evolve speech given the right conditions. Our contention is over what conditions are
required for chimp-like apes to evolve speech. Deacon in the reference above discusses vocality in
aquatic mammals and birds, which he attributes (correctly IMHO) to their need for conscious breath
control. I simply don't think human ancestors were sufficiently aquatic over a sufficiently long
time for their aquatic existence to have led to speech.

Yours,

Bill Morse

"Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

William Morse :

Quoted message said:

Marc Verhaegen :

Quoted message said:

William Morse : Having said the above, a quick look at real estate prices for
> waterfront
property makes a convincing case without any other evidence that we are adapted to life _near_
the water. Given our relatively high behavioral plasticity, even a relatively recent (0.8 ma
would qualify as recent in my book) period of development primarily in a coastal setting might
well make sense in explaining our love for water. However this will not account for bipedalism

(snip)

Quoted message said:

My idea (which is the topic of this discussion) is saying that we became streamlined
because of plunge diving (just like plunge diving birds are very straight when they are
plunge diving).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I said previously, humans show evidence of development in a shoreline habitat - but it only
explains a few of the differences that set us apart from our nearest relatives.

I don't know if you missed my earlier follow, in which I pointed out some of our liabilities for
plunge diving. And as you may not be aware, I have often used penguins and seals as examples of
convergent evolution. But seals, even though they are streamlined, do not walk upright. Penguins do.
The difference is that penguins evolved from bipedal ancestors while seals evolved from quadripedal
ancestors.Since humans evolved from quadripedal ancestors, the analogy to penguins doesn't hold. You
might also note that human legs are poorly adapted for swimming (if you look at the olympic sprint
swimming events you will note that they don't use their legs for much.)

The other problem with plunge diving as an explanation is that there is precious little habitat for
a non-flying plunge diver to exploit - there simply aren't that many locations where cliffs overlook
deep clear water. I am unaware of any mammal that makes its living by plunge diving. There are
fishing bats, but they catch their prey with their feet, probably because they evolved from echo-
locating ancestors and so use echo-location rather than vision to spot fish and so cannot detect
fish at any significant depth.

Yours,

Bill Morse

"J Moore" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A lot of blabla for nothing. Try to be concise. The facts in Hoelzel are

correct, it has everything to do with sweating, but as you say the ref is apparently wrong. It
should be GA Bartholomew & F Wilke 1956 "Body Tp in the northern furseal" J.Mammal.37:327. This is
not contradicted by anything that follows. [snipped irrelevancies] The point you completely miss is
not that we sweat like sealions, but that it's stupid to believe that when forest mammals go to the
savanna they start sweating more: the opposite is true in savanna mammals (see below).

Quoted message said:

In a way it is for nothing; that is it adds nothing to knowledge of human

evolution save to point out that the claim you've been making about sea lions and sweat is wrong

It's not: humans & sealions sweat abundantly thermoactively. These processes need salt & water. It's
ridiculous to believe sweating evolved for runnin over the savanna as many PAs still believe: water
& salt are scarse there.

Quoted message said:

and is shown to be wrong using the sources you claimed supported it. It's

kind of sad that this has to be done (I'll never get that afternoon back, but then I like libraries)
but I had to point out that your much repeated claim had no basis in fact, despite your offering a
citation which you claimed supported it. I've dealt with the Bartholomew and Wilkie paper on my
cite. They did say they saw the animals wave their flippers but as evidence of sweat itself offered
only an experiment with frying a dead seal's flipper under a heat lamp until it blistered.

Man, you're raving. The evidence are the abundant sweat glands on the flippers.

Quoted message said:

These other cites which I summarised show through actual measurements in

experiments that sea lions do indeed sweat, but ineffectively

Sigh. Not ineffectively, but insufficiently - as to be expected in a semi-aquatic mammal: it can go
to the water if thermoregulation on land is insufficient.

Quoted message said:

, which directly contradicts your claim.

Too the contrary. But too difficult for you apparently.

Quoted message said:

(In fact most of a sea lion's heat loss through the flippers is through

radiation using the blood vessels that adjust blood flow to the flippers according to heat load

Yes. So?
1) What makes you believe that cooling through radiation doesn't allow cooling through evaporation?
2) A lot better cooling device is of course conduction: vasodilation in flippers in the water.

Quoted message said:

-- alas for the sea lions, even this is not effective enough to get rid of

the heat they need to lose.)

See above. And think a bit.

Quoted message said:

I am not here making any claim for any "scenario", "alternative" or

otherwise. I am merely examining the evidence for your scenario to see if it makes sense and is
supported by evidence. It doesn't and it isn't.

I'm not interested in your savanna & other biases. I'm interested in the facts: why are you
completely incapable of giving 1 serious argument against our scenario??

M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17, 212-
217 7_05(If somebody is interested in reading our paper, I can send the pdf.)

Alister Hardy ("Was Man more aquatic in the past?" NS 1960): a sea-side life - beach-combing,
wading, swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs, seaweeds
etc. - explains many human traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) many times better
than dry savanna scenarios do: very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb!), greater breathing
control, greater diving skills, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of
climbing skills, reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build,
high needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc.

(Hardy at the time was wrong of course in thinking his seaside phase happened ~10 Ma. More likely it
happened during the Ice Ages: early Pleistocene [censored] fossils or tools have been found in Israel,
Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java. When sea levels dropped, H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean
(pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts (erectus). Pleistocene coasts during the glacial
periods were some 120 m below the present sea level, so many fossil & archeological finds show the
inland [censored] populations that entered the continents along the rivers & wetlands. In spite of this,
[censored] remains (but not australopithecine) have frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles
etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in coasts all over the Old World (eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata,
Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that could only be reached by sea: Flores 0.8 Ma.)

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

Marc Verhaegen onelist.comAATOpen ↗
allserv.rug.ac.beVerhaegen.htmlOpen ↗

J Moore :

Quoted message said:

Mario Petrinovich sent me his post via e-mail, but agreed to my suggestion that this debate should
be continued in the public forum it started in. In case he hasn't posted his post to the
newsgroupo yet, I've appended the entire text of it at the bottom of my post here so people can
check the accuracy of my excerpts of his post:

Actually, I was replying to your post, received from you, by e-mail, so I responded
adequately. Just to put things in their real context.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Interesting. You are saying that what we need in water is leaping?

No, what I said several times, and I thought pretty clearly, is that large cats will commonly
chase their prey into water to catch it, and that this wo rks well for them because they leap
through the water while the water slows down their prey. This means that running into water isn't
a good way to get away from large cats, contrary to your statements. Your suggestion that we
always dived into deep water presupposes that we were always very near water that is very deep at
the shoreline, which rids the "aquatic ape" of the ability to be the shoreline wader that most
proponents now want it to be.

Actually, yes. You are perfectly right here. I never saw anything interesting in wadding
idea. My scenario doesn't include wadding as start of bipedalism.

Quoted message said:

On proboscis monkeys and their noses:

Quoted message said:

I was talking about jumping into water. When they are in panic (and they are in panic in
life threating situations, someone would presume) they are jumping into water. Life
threating situations shape you.

When they jump into the water they jump feet first with their heads held in a position that would
drive water up their nostrils if that actually were a problem -- as I explained it isn't actually
a problem if you hold your breath -- but the actual behavior of proboscis monkeys jumping into
water is not what you imagine it to be; they don't dive or hold their heads down.

As I said, we also can jump into water legs first. It is good to close nostrils if you jump
this way, if I remember correctly from when I was at the sea. Anyway, it isn't a big
problem. Problem for nostrils arise when you are jumping head first (like plunge diving
birds clearly show). Jumping head first is recquired to gain distance. I don't know how
Proboscis monkey gain distance. Probably by leaping. I definitely would like to research
this more. I wonder where I can get more info. Do Proboscis monkeys hold their nostrils like
tapirs? Here is an excerption from an animal encyclopedia which could answer a lot of
questions you are asking above : "Instinctively, all tapirs take refugee in water when they
are being persueded by predators, which include jaguars, tigers, pumas, and Andean bears -
ingeniously, the Brazilian tapir of the Amazon may submerge itself in deep water to force a
jaguar clinging to its back to release the hold." Why doesn't prey of large cats take a dive
to get rid of its predators? For tapirs, running into water is excellent way to get rid of
predators. Tapirs are an old family. Today's, more common, grazers are newer thing. Before
today's grass fields, a lot of world was rainy forest. Animals adapted to running into water
to find refugee would be more common. We are adapted for this, as well as we are straight
like kangaroos. I see no problem for us. I don't know where are you seeing it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When was that I claimed that we see predators? Certainly not in the last year or so (but
I think I never did this. I usually don't claim such uncertain things). I also never did
mention crocs. And I am swimming safe in

You said it in this newsgroup on the 15th of this month; that was 4 days ago: "In water predator,
although seen at same distance, need to swim towards you. You have plenty of time to exchange
informations."

This is incorrect information; it's wrong. This is known stuff, well known, and in fact I have
many examples on my site with the references to the literature that supports what I'm saying.

Oh. No problem. Mea culpa. I discussed a lot about how we don't have aquatic predators, so I
am keeping this in the back of my mind that everybody thinks like that. In example above, I
didn't talk about aquatic predators at all, but about terrestrial predators going after us.
Predators like big cats we were talking about. I was comparing dealing with terrestrial
predators on land and in water.

Quoted message said:

Further, although on land some predators no doubt attack without being seen first, or seen to
late to do anything about it, that is almost certainly not the approach that our ancestors took
with terrestrial predators, since they probably reacted to them much as chimps do now. Again, my
site has lots of info on this as well, also supported by references to the relevant literature.

Will you, please, explain here, in short?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Adriatic sea, no problem. Along with millions of others. Why, indeed, South Africans are
spending on shark nets. Didn't those mothers with their children heard about sharks? What is so
much attracting them to put their beloved children in such a dangerous conditions? Listening to
you, I would presume that they wouldn't go into sea even if this can save their lives.

You claimed that for humans there are no sea predators and that "for us, sea is safe". I pointed
out that even for us, with our advanced technology, life guards, and having for several centuries
decimated our predators with guns and nets, we still get attacked by aquatic predators. And these
predators attack in both shallow and deep water, and we usually don't see them before they attack,
even when we are in groups. These predators also don't respond to counter-attack as a rule, which
makes them even more dangerous and rather different from terrestrial predators. For our early
hominid ancestors, who were smaller and had no technology to speak of (rocks and branches), and
who weren't able to wipe huge numbers of their predators from the face of the earth as we have,
this would be even more dangerous. This is no doubt why we see that animals (chimps) who are very
like our ancestors (ie., of medium size with slow reproductive rates) can exist as terrestrial
animals, but we see no such animal (ie., like us, of medium size with slow reproductive rates) in
an aquatic environment anywhere in the world.

Firstly, do we see a diference, in that regard, between Old and New (without human impact)
world? That would need more thorough research, but I think I could see a diference.
Further, there is a national park in South Africa, Cape Peninsula National Park. It is
situated on the Cape of Good Hope. There, chacma baboons are roaming beaches in the fashion
similar to what I had in mind. I did have in mind more rocky coast, but this place also has
a lot of steep hills. During low tide, those baboons are feeding on shark eggs. Now, what
sharks have to say on this, lol? Why sharks don't attack us, I am not 100% sure. It could
be that they don't like animals with limbs. It could be that they can use us, because we
are scaring fish. Maybe this all has something to do with dolphins. Shark experts usually
like to say : If sharks would attack us, it wouldn't be few isolated cases, that look more
like mistakes. It would be a real bloodshed. No way that we could go anywhere near sea,
with all protection you can find. In water, we are without rock or branches even today.
Today also we are unarmed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> clue for AAT. You can try to dismiss AAT things one by one, but you cannot do this with them
> all at once. I believe that it is time for YOU, to start to accept that all those things
> that look so similar to aquatic adaptations, really could arise from those same adaptations
> >2mya. -- Mario

One can only disprove individual points one by one, and as you go through the AAT litany, each
point falls apart when you look at the evidence. That AAT list of "aquatic traits" has the rather
large problem of containing myriad items that are simply false. In science one cannot accept
things that are demonstrably false, so I decline your invitation to do so. JMoore

In science one can accept things that are true, though. I don't have time to discuss
anything than plunge diving related things, right now. I only could say, in general,
that your interpretation looks to me like wrong one. OTOH, by every day AAT is
improving. -- Mario

As Mario mentioned, I goofed and hit the wrong button when I was sending this reply and sent it just
to him when I meant to send it to the newsgroup. Because some of these points were replied to, I
thought it would be good to have the post show up. 🙂 It would've been in the thread a few days ago
though (around the 17th or 18th).

Jim

************
Mario, you really have to ... what can I say. Penguins are not fish, they are birds. Don't you see
how ridiculous you sound when say they're fish? They aren't even like fish. I mean come on. Even
allowing for hyperbole this is a ridiculous statement.

Quoted message said:

I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. Yes, I've seen their skeleton
before. Penguins are not like quadruped mammals, nor like monkeys. It is obvious, they are bipedal
fish (evolved from birds).

About killing large cats in water.

Quoted message said:

A kangaroo is doing this. It is suppose to know better than you.

It

Quoted message said:

was in those situations. A leopard is just a floating meat if it cannot

Kangaroos do not live in places with leopards. Again,. this is common knowledge, not arcane
scienctific data. Don't you realise you sound ridiculous when you state things that even grade
school kids know is wrong? I really don't mean to be mean in pointing this out, but really. Also
note, when you start talking about dingos rather than leopards, that kangaroos move by leaping,
which really helps in moving quickly through shallow water. That's why big cats, which can attack
with leaping bounds, often chase their prey into water to catch them. And it is a fact, which you
can even see from watching nature shows on TV, that large cats regularly attack and kill their prey
by chasing them into water. I'll grant you that if we were trying to get away from dingos (or
possibly hunting dogs), and if we could leap like kangaroos or large cats, we might escape by going
into water -- but I shouldn't really have to point out that we can't do that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

water out of primates' noses, no matter which way it's oriented. The orientation of the nostrils
is similar in all Old World monkeys, btw -- that's how they got their scientific name, in fact.

I think you are wrong here. Lenghtening nose always helps in

aquatic

Quoted message said:

situations. BTW, I was talking about female's nose. It wouldn't be strange

they

Quoted message said:

are in aquatical environment (crocs are their only predator, this is

pretty

Quoted message said:

aquatical. Predators shape you.). It could simply be that longer noses

help

Quoted message said:

when they jump into water. Or whatever. A respiratory adaptation is

logical

Quoted message said:

in aquatical environment.

Female and young proboscis monkeys do not hold their noses in a position that would tend to make
water wash over it. That would be a face down position, like the "crawl" position in human swimming;
they hold their noses in the position we would a "dog paddle" which if you would look at pictures of
them swimming you would see leaves their nostrils facing essentially forward in the water, the
opposite of what you are imagining them doing.

Quoted message said:

We don't have sea predators. For us, sea is safe. Remember summer days?

Again, are you completely unaware that even modern day humans, with our technology and our having
nearly wiped out many large aquatic predators, we still have problems with aquatic predators? Why
does the government of South Africa spend all that money on shark nets around their swimming
beaches? Are they just crazy in your view? The fact is that even today, when we have far more
effective anti-predator techniques at our disposal than any of our past ancestors, we still get
killed by crocs and sharks. Further, contrary to your claim that we'd just see them coming from
afar, most attacking aquatic predators aren't seen until they attack. For instance (and this is
typical) the boy who was attacked in Florida last year was in shallow water (about knee-deep) and
the shark wasn't seen until it had atatcked him. Crocs do the same; I have a typical example on my
site of a woman in Australia who was standing, with two companions, in ankle-deep water who was
atatcked and killed by a croc that none of them saw until it grabbed her. This is typical of these
predators.

Quoted message said:

If you ask me, your book about dismissing AAT is becoming thicker and thicker. Every new day
brings another clue against savanna, and

another

Quoted message said:

clue for AAT. You can try to dismiss AAT things one by one, but you cannot do this with them all
at once. I believe that it is time for YOU, to start to accept that all those things that look so
similar to aquatic

adaptations,

Quoted message said:

really could arise from those same adaptations >2mya. -- Mario

First you have to have things that DO look like aquatic adaptations, and the things that AAT
proponents point to just don't; I detail many of these things on my site. And second you have to ask
yourself why humans have none of the actual ubitquitous aquatic and/or marine traits (developed via
convergent evolution) found in mammals. NONE.

--

For a scientific critque of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquatic.org

Quoted message said:

Do Proboscis monkeys hold their nostrils like tapirs? Here is an

They neither hold their noses or close their nostrils as they jump feet first into water.

Quoted message said:

excerption from an animal encyclopedia which could answer a lot of

questions

Quoted message said:

you are asking above : "Instinctively, all tapirs take refugee in water when they are

being

Quoted message said:

persueded by predators, which include jaguars, tigers, pumas, and Andean bears - ingeniously, the
Brazilian tapir of the Amazon may submerge itself in deep water to force a jaguar clinging to its
back to release the hold." Why doesn't prey of large cats take a dive to get rid of its predators?
For tapirs, running into water is excellent way to get rid of predators. Tapirs are an old family.
Today's, more common, grazers are

newer

Quoted message said:

thing. Before today's grass fields, a lot of world was rainy forest.

Animals

Quoted message said:

adapted to running into water to find refugee would be more common. We are adapted for this, as
well as we are straight like kangaroos. I see no problem for us. I don't know where are you
seeing it.

Tapirs are large animals; adults are, on average at least as large as jaguars, usually 50% or more
bigger. They also have an extremely tough skin. Both those features probably account for their
being able to use a technique that would leave a hominid in shreds or dangling from the mouth of
their attacker.

And again, running into water typically slows down the prey more than it slows the cat, which is
why, in the real world, large cats use that technique. And we are not very much like kangaroos just
as penguins are not very much like fish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further, although on land some predators no doubt attack without being seen first, or seen to
late to

do

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anything about it, that is almost certainly not the approach that our ancestors took with
terrestrial predators, since they probably reacted

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them much as chimps do now. Again, my site has lots of info on this as well, also supported by
references to the relevant literature.

Will you, please, explain here, in short?

You could go read it. In very short form then, chimps tend to be proactive rather than reactive;
they scream at large cats (leopards especially), throw things at them, and will often drive them
off. They have been observed crawling into a leopard's den, and dragging out and killing one of the
cubs even though the female leopard was in the den. In experiments with a dummy leopard in the 60s,
Kortland found chimps to be extremely agressive; they threw things and held their ground.
Interestingly (considering the attention AATers like to give savannah-dwellers) savannah chimps were
much better at this than forest dwelling chimps. The savannah chimps were much more agressive and
coordinated in their attacks, and Kortland also noted "A side effect of the experiment was the
observation that the savannah chimpanzees more often walked erect than do the jungle chimpanzees."

Chimps have also been observed sleeping on the ground in leopard country; they just don't seem to be
as concerned about them as we would imagine (I'd be concerned). Now they definitely do get caught by
both leopards and lions at times, but the rate of predation is obviously too low to be a problem for
the population -- obvious because otherwise they would not have survived as a species in their
environment. That's also why it's interesting to note that no animal of small or medium size with a
slow reproductive rate (such as humans and chimps) can be found in any aquatic environment anywhere
in the world.

Quoted message said:

Firstly, do we see a diference, in that regard, between Old and

New

Quoted message said:

(without human impact) world? That would need more thorough research, but

I

Quoted message said:

think I could see a diference. Further, there is a national park in South Africa, Cape Peninsula
National Park. It is situated on the Cape of Good Hope. There, chacma baboons are roaming beaches
in the fashion similar to what I had in mind. I did have in mind more rocky coast, but this place

also

Quoted message said:

has a lot of steep hills. During low tide, those baboons are feeding on shark eggs. Now, what
sharks have to say on this, lol?

Sharks (some give live birth, some lays eggs that drift with the currents and sometimes drift
ashore) do not hang around their eggs protecting them, and they suffer enormous losses of eggs as a
result, so the fact that creatures eat the eggs when they drift to shore doesn't have anything to do
with shark attack, except that attacks can occur whenever an animal is in the water. (BTW, I've seen
video of a sharks attacking birds and seals that actually made it to shore but were still being
attacked with the shark about a third of the way out of water -- tenacious creatures when they want
to be, sharks.) But this doesn't reduce their numbers because they have a lot of offspring (crocs,
and many other animals, have the same method of getting young to adulthood -- just have lots and
lots of them). As for "what sharks have to say on this", just as with counterattacks on them, they,
and crocs, just don't seem to care. That's one part of what makes them so dangerous, since they
don't respond to counterattacks anywhere near as readily as terrestrial predators tend to.

Quoted message said:

Why sharks don't attack us, I am not 100% sure. It could be that they don't like animals
with limbs. It could be that they can use us, because we are scaring fish. Maybe this all
has something to do with dolphins. Shark experts usually like to say : If sharks would
attack us,

it

Quoted message said:

wouldn't be few isolated cases, that look more like mistakes. It would be

a

Quoted message said:

real bloodshed. No way that we could go anywhere near sea, with all protection you can find. In
water, we are without rock or branches even today. Today also we are unarmed.

"We", as a species, aren't spending a great deal of time in the water -- some few of "us" do. And we
have decimated many of our predators, and those predators have evolved alongside hominids who have
been vastly better armed than our earliest ancestors for a million years or more. That could all
have something to do with the fact that sharks don't attack us all the time. That does not -- or
should not -- become "sharks don't attack us". My point is that we are vastly less likely to be
attacked by aquatic predators than our early ancestors, yet we still are attacked, and we rarely see
it coming and outside of avoiding the environment, fencing it off, or using sophisticated weapons,
there's not much we can do about it. This is very different from the situation with terrestrial
predators.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One can only disprove individual points one by one, and as you go

through

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the AAT litany, each point falls apart when you look at the evidence. That AAT list of "aquatic
traits" has the rather large problem of containing myriad items that are simply false. In
science one cannot accept things that are demonstrably false, so I decline your invitation to
do so.

JMoore

Quoted message said:

In science one can accept things that are true, though. I don't

have

Quoted message said:

time to discuss anything than plunge diving related things, right now. I only could say, in
general, that your interpretation looks to me like

wrong

Quoted message said:

one. OTOH, by every day AAT is improving. -- Mario

I used to hear this fairly often -- I would bring out some facts and point out that the AAT
proponent's "facts" were actually "false facts", and the AAT proponent would say it was simply a
matter of "interpretation". It's a shame to see that the level of argument for the AAT hasn't grown
at all in the past decade.

JMoore

"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false
views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutory pleasure in
proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path toward error is closed and the road to
truth is often at the same time opened."

Chapter 21, page 909.

--

For a scientific critque of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquatic.org

William Morse :

Quoted message said:

Mario Petrinovich :

Quoted message said:

William Morse :

Quoted message said:

Marc Verhaegen :
> William Morse : Having said the above, a quick look at real estate prices for
>> waterfront
> property makes a convincing case without any other evidence that we are adapted to life
> _near_ the water. Given our relatively high behavioral plasticity, even a relatively recent
> (0.8 ma would qualify as recent in my book) period of development primarily in a coastal
> setting might well make sense in explaining our love for water. However this will not account
> for bipedalism

(snip)

Quoted message said:

My idea (which is the topic of this discussion) is saying that we became streamlined
because of plunge diving (just like plunge diving birds are very straight when they are
plunge diving).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As I said previously, humans show evidence of development in a shoreline habitat - but it only
explains a few of the differences that set us apart from our nearest relatives.

I don't know if you missed my earlier follow, in which I pointed out some of our liabilities for
plunge diving.

Is this it : "One of the basic problems, as J. Moore pointed out, is that we are not in fact
particularly well adapted to a fully aquatic existence. Diving from a height of 10 meters
for humans is absurd (have you ever stood on a 10 meter board and looked down?) Repeated
diving in humans from even a low board leads to sinus problems (as I have learned from
experience). Our subcutaneous fat is nowhere near enough to allow us to spend any
significant time in cold water (and water below the thermocline is always cold). Even in
warm water our skin rapidly swells and becomes easily subject to abrasion and puncture. We
are so poorly adapted to truly deep diving that the well-developed vocality is unlikely to
be due to the development of conscious breathing control, as it may be in birds and truly
aquatic mammals. It is more likely that the breath-hold control is a byproduct of speech."

I used a 10m example just to show the forces. They found out that we are more adapted to
walk with forces above our head that are equal to 20% of our weight, than without this
weight. This is the avarage force, if you turn this into avarage hight, that I am having in
mind. Possibly a little more, since a lot of time passed from then. But also could be a
little less since we shuld be adapted to considerably higher foces, as well. Regarding our
thermo insulation. I have a book called "Encyclopedia of Human Body" by Richard Walker.
There, on page 63 (in edition from 2002), you have shown a thermogram of human body, which
reveals how body heat is lost through the skin. It is, more or less, even (low) from
sholders down. Which is perfectly in tune with AAT. Only sholders and head are where we are
dissipate body heat through skin. Every summer we are going to the sea, for the sole reason
(especially children) to stay in sea how much we can. I really don't know where you are
getting ideas that we couldn't stand this. I don't think any AATer is mentioning truly deep
diving. But, I wouldn't be surprised if you colud find some interesting things regarding
plunge diving and breath control. I'll try to research this more, sometime in the future.

Quoted message said:

And as you may not be aware, I have often used penguins and seals as examples of convergent
evolution. But seals, even though they are streamlined, do not walk upright. Penguins do. The
difference is that penguins evolved from bipedal ancestors while seals evolved from quadripedal
ancestors.Since humans evolved from quadripedal ancestors, the analogy to penguins doesn't hold.
You might also note that human legs are poorly adapted for swimming (if you look at the olympic
sprint swimming events you will note that they don't use their legs for much.)

Well, this could, actually, prove what I am saying. Because seals were quadrupedal, they
aren't adapted to forces in axial direction, but ruther to forces at right angle to that
direction. This is why they are not holding their body on land in axial direction to the
force of gravity, but to right angle to it. Penguines probably evolved from plunge diving
birds. I don't have the right info yet, but, from pictures, plunge diving birds look much
more vertical than other birds. The reason they aren't completly vertical could be in their
need to take off. Birds have horizontal trunk. And penguins have stronger front limbs.
Instead of putting my whole trunk vertical and legs below it, I would ruther have right
angle between trunk and legs, which isn't at all that hard for a penguin, if you've seen
penguin's skeleton (somebody already mentioned that they have pelvises like quadrupel
mammals), and use front limbs just like seals. How come they are able to put their trunk
vertically. Birds don't have this. They have horizontal trunk. No, they are adapted to
sustain axial forces, not forces in right angle to axial.

Quoted message said:

The other problem with plunge diving as an explanation is that there is precious little habitat
for a non-flying plunge diver to exploit - there simply aren't that many locations where cliffs
overlook deep clear water.

Actually, I made my theory much before I made this 'plunge diving - bipedality' connection.
It is based on excellent conditions for us on a Mediterranean rocky coast. Full of small
tree fruits, cliff bird eggs. A steep hill is going steeply into sea, so depth is reached
very easy. Wherever you have steep hills which are contacting sea, you have good conditions
for a tailless primate to live there. Look at tailless macaques. They are all, either on
islands without predators, or on hilly region. Fruits need a lot of sunshine. Steep hills
give conditions for a lot densier growth of fruits (each tree gets more sunshine), which can
attract a primate. You have a lot of primates spending night on cliffs, as safe place from
predators. We can climb cliffs better than predators. Cats are climbing trees by sticking
their claws into tree and/or embracing tree trunk with their powerfull limbs. They cannot do
any of this with a cliff. Gelada baboons, which are adapted to life on cliffs (they don't
climbe trees even in danger of predators) have very dexterous hands (don't give me that :
"This is becaus ethey have to CAREFULLY pick grass blades." thing). -- Mario

Quoted message said:

I am unaware of any mammal that makes its living by plunge diving. There are fishing bats, but
they catch their prey with their feet, probably because they evolved from echo-locating ancestors
and so use echo-location rather than vision to spot fish and so cannot detect fish at any
significant depth. Bill Morse

J Moore :

Quoted message said:

As Mario mentioned, I goofed and hit the wrong button when I was sending this reply and sent it
just to him when I meant to send it to the newsgroup. Because some of these points were replied
to, I thought it would be good to have the post show up. 🙂 It would've been in the thread a few
days ago though (around the 17th or 18th). Jim

Thanks. This was my answer to you. -- Mario

*************

Quoted message said:

Mario, you really have to ... what can I say. Penguins are not fish, they are birds. Don't you see
how ridiculous you sound when say they're fish? They aren't even like fish. I mean come on. Even
allowing for hyperbole this is a ridiculous statement.

What relly is ridiculous, is you trying to ridiculing me on this. Claiming that penguins are
birds is as much ridiculous as claiming that we are apes, although we are humans, and
weren't apes for so long. Or, that dolphins aren't fish because they are flipping their tail
upside-down instead of left-right. They are functionaly fish, and this is what we are
talking about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. Yes, I've seen their
skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped mammals, nor like monkeys. It is
obvious, they are bipedal fish (evolved from birds).

About killing large cats in water.

Quoted message said:

A kangaroo is doing this. It is suppose to know better than you. It was in those
situations. A leopard is just a floating meat if it cannot

Kangaroos do not live in places with leopards. Again,. this is common knowledge, not arcane
scienctific data. Don't you realise you sound ridiculous when you state things that even grade
school kids know is wrong? I really don't mean to be mean in pointing this out, but really. Also
note, when you start talking about dingos rather than leopards, that kangaroos move by leaping,
which really helps in moving quickly through shallow water.

You mean from shallow into deeper. Well, by plunge diving into water you also are fastly
into deeper water. That way you can use your potential and kinetic energy to gain distance.

Quoted message said:

That's why big cats, which can attack with leaping bounds, often chase their prey into water to
catch them. And it is a fact, which you can even see from watching nature shows on TV, that large
cats regularly attack and kill their prey by chasing them into water. I'll grant you that if we
were trying to get away from dingos (or possibly hunting dogs), and if we could leap like
kangaroos or large cats, we might escape by going into water -- but I shouldn't really have to
point out that we can't do that.

Interesting. You are saying that what we need in water is leaping?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lenghtening nose always helps in aquatic situations. BTW, I was talking about female's
nose. It wouldn't be strange

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are in aquatical environment (crocs are their only predator, this is pretty aquatical.
Predators shape you.). It could simply be that longer noses help when they jump into water. Or
whatever. A respiratory adaptation is logical in aquatical environment.

Female and young proboscis monkeys do not hold their noses in a position that would tend to make
water wash over it. That would be a face down position, like the "crawl" position in human
swimming; they hold their noses in the position we would a "dog paddle" which if you would look at
pictures of them swimming you would see leaves their nostrils facing essentially forward in the
water, the opposite of what you are imagining them doing.

I was talking about jumping into water. When they are in panic (and they are in panic in
life threating situations, someone would presume) they are jumping into water. Life
threating situations shape you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We don't have sea predators. For us, sea is safe. Remember summer days?

Again, are you completely unaware that even modern day humans, with our technology and our having
nearly wiped out many large aquatic predators, we still have problems with aquatic predators? Why
does the government of South Africa spend all that money on shark nets around their swimming
beaches? Are they just crazy in your view? The fact is that even today, when we have far more
effective anti-predator techniques at our disposal than any of our past ancestors, we still get
killed by crocs and sharks. Further, contrary to your claim that we'd just see them coming from
afar, most attacking aquatic predators aren't seen until they attack. For instance (and this is
typical) the boy who was attacked in Florida last year was in shallow water (about knee-deep) and
the shark wasn't seen until it had atatcked him. Crocs do the same; I have a typical example on my
site of a woman in Australia who was standing, with two companions, in ankle-deep water who was
atatcked and killed by a croc that none of them saw until it grabbed her. This is typical of these
predators.

When was that I claimed that we see predators? Certainly not in the last year or so (but I
think I never did this. I usually don't claim such uncertain things). I also never did
mention crocs. And I am swimming safe in Adriatic sea, no problem. Along with millions of
others. Why, indeed, South Africans are spending on shark nets. Didn't those mothers with
their children heard about sharks? What is so much attracting them to put their beloved
children in such a dangerous conditions? Listening to you, I would presume that they
wouldn't go into sea even if this can save their lives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you ask me, your book about dismissing AAT is becoming thicker and thicker. Every new
day brings another clue against savanna, and another clue for AAT. You can try to
dismiss AAT things one by one, but you cannot do this with them all at once. I believe
that it is time for YOU, to start to accept that all those things that look so similar
to aquatic adaptations, really could arise from those same adaptations >2mya. -- Mario

First you have to have things that DO look like aquatic adaptations, and the things that AAT
proponents point to just don't; I detail many of these things on my site. And second you have to
ask yourself why humans have none of the actual ubitquitous aquatic and/or marine traits
(developed via convergent evolution) found in mammals. NONE.

Unfortunately, I don't have time, right now, to discuss anything except our straight posture
thing. Sorry about this. -- Mario

J Moore :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do Proboscis monkeys hold their nostrils like tapirs? Here is an

They neither hold their noses or close their nostrils as they jump feet first into water.

I was thinking, when they are swimming. Do they hold their noses in the same fashion as
tapirs? Regarding jumping, we have covered nostrils and we are staright. Just like plunge
diving birds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

excerption from an animal encyclopedia which could answer a lot of questions you are asking
above : "Instinctively, all tapirs take refugee in water when they are being persueded by
predators, which include jaguars, tigers, pumas, and Andean bears - ingeniously, the Brazilian
tapir of the Amazon may submerge itself in deep water to force a jaguar clinging to its back to
release the hold." Why doesn't prey of large cats take a dive to get rid of its predators? For
tapirs, running into water is excellent way to get rid of predators. Tapirs are an old family.
Today's, more common, grazers are newer thing. Before today's grass fields, a lot of world was
rainy forest. Animals adapted to running into water to find refugee would be more common. We are
adapted for this, as well as we are straight like kangaroos. I see no problem for us. I don't
know where are you seeing it.

Tapirs are large animals; adults are, on average at least as large as jaguars, usually 50% or more
bigger. They also have an extremely tough skin. Both those features probably account for their
being able to use a technique that would leave a hominid in shreds or dangling from the mouth of
their attacker.

And again, running into water typically slows down the prey more than it slows the cat, which is
why, in the real world, large cats use that technique. And we are not very much like kangaroos
just as penguins are not very much like fish.

Again, I don't see what is wrong with escaping predators by taking a dive. We are
exceptionaly good at this. What is wrong with drowning predator in water by using your
hands. And you are perfectly right here, we are nothing like this, compared to kangaroos. We
should be much much more capable of doing this than kangaroos. We evolved from a primate
with long, strong hands. If predator is in the water we can do whatever we want. We could
dive, emerge wherever we want. We can emerge behind it, ride it, put our hand around its
neck, pull it below water, and keep it there until it dies. We can do this even to very big
predator. After all, we can ride a horse. We don't have to run into water, we can simply
plunge into it. Grazing animals are on plains. You don't have so much steep shores there.
And, there are not a lot of places with shallow shores anyway. Grazing quadruped animals
have trouble to find a good place to go across the river.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further, although on land some predators no doubt attack without being seen first, or seen to
late to do anything about it, that is almost certainly not the approach that our ancestors
took with terrestrial predators, since they probably reacted to them much as chimps do now.
Again, my site has lots of info on this as well, also supported by references to the relevant
literature.

Will you, please, explain here, in short?

You could go read it. In very short form then, chimps tend to be proactive rather than reactive;
they scream at large cats (leopards especially), throw things at them, and will often drive them
off. They have been observed crawling into a leopard's den, and dragging out and killing one of
the cubs even though the female leopard was in the den. In experiments with a dummy leopard in the
60s, Kortland found chimps to be extremely agressive; they threw things and held their ground.
Interestingly (considering the attention AATers like to give savannah-dwellers) savannah chimps
were much better at this than forest dwelling chimps. The savannah chimps were much more agressive
and coordinated in their attacks, and Kortland also noted "A side effect of the experiment was the
observation that the savannah chimpanzees more often walked erect than do the jungle chimpanzees."

Oh, my god. I should have known this. I spent so much time in sci.anthropology.paleo
newsgroup to deal with this, and now I have to do all this again. Whatever this Kortland is
writing is pure [censored]. This guy is so biased that this is unbelievable. He was very
popular when savanna theory was at its peak, by spreading this [censored]. In short. (Forgive me
for this. I am not very well organized person. In fact I am not organized at all, and I
don't keep notes, remarks, or anything like that. You'll just have to deal with it, if you
can.). Anyway, I think that all monkeys of low canopy are doing the same. When they see
predator, they don't run away from it. Instead they keep staring at it, keep it in its
sight. This is very important for them, to not lose sight of it. Until predator finaly
decides that there is no point, and decides to leave. They can do this because they are much
better in their environment (trees) than predator. For them, the only important thing is to
not be cought by surprise. It is interesting that the same attitude towards predators I am
having in my scenario. In my scenario, we too are much better in deep water than predators.
The only important thing is to not be cought by surprise. Regarding Kortland's [censored]. He
saw dead leopard cups, but he never saw a mother near by. He only assumed that mother was
there (because he wanted her to be there, just like the people who are reading this BS).
Very scientific. The dummy experiments are the most stupid experiments that I ever heard of,
in my whole life. This thing can be bought only by the strongest believer. A chimps saw a
dummy of leopard. Just by seeing a plain dummy, they went into panic. They started to throw
things on it (they actually behaved simialrly to how they would behave if they saw a leopard
from low canopy). The forest ones were so accurate that they didn't manage to hit the dummy
even once. A savanna ones managed to hit it twice, or something, by accident. Lol. This was
the big proof that chimps are perfectly capable to attack leopard dummies, lol. I don't know
if to cry or to laugh. And even more, that we evolved just this way, because savanna ones
even managed to actually hit the dummy (which wasn't moving, or did anything at all). My
god. And look at this description : "Savanna ones were much agressive (by Kortland's
agrometer), and coordinated (by coordimeter)." Once, I've read on Internet about one well-
known female researcher (I don't remember if this was Goodal or somebody else). When she was
young, just started researching, she researched baboons. Once she did one foolish thing. She
looked a female baboon in eyes. A baboon screamed in panic. Baboons reacted and attacked
researcher. They would kill her, if her guide didn't save her from certain death. Only
because of wrong look. My God. But, hey. This isn't important at all. After all we didn't
evolve from baboons, so, who cares. OTOH, once some chimp played with some branch. Chimp
accidently droped that branch on Goodal's head. "Oh, my poor head. Oh, how it hurts. Oh, you
chimp almighty. How strong you are. Oh, you ruler of the World. How mighty you are. You are
perfectly capable of going wherever you want, without fear. You can defeat anything. How
smart and strong you are." I went through all this, and I don't want to go again. There are
a lot accounts and research that are telling that leopard is the main cause of chimp death.
Chimps don't sleep on ground if they know leopard is around. I even heard of one research
which tracks leopard movement, and noticed that it evades chimps. Of course it does. It
doesn't want chimps to be alerted, before it attacks. It has better sense of smell, and it
manages to keep stupid chimps unaware of its presence. But somebody concluded (or
'interpreted' this evidence, if you like) that it evades chimps because it is afraid of
chimps. Lol. There are no documented killings because it is hard to document something like
that in jungle. Poor visibility, it happens at night. Next day you only count one chimp
less. It is not like savanna, where you have a line of sight of few hundred meters around
you, and you can shot anything without leaving your hide. In jungle you cannot take a hide,
expect that something happens a few meters infront of you, because every animal that is
close to you is aware of your presence And expect that that something is a leopard killing a
chimp. First of all, chimp wouldn't be near you, and leopard would avoid you by far.

Quoted message said:

Chimps have also been observed sleeping on the ground in leopard country; they just don't seem to
be as concerned about them as we would imagine (I'd be concerned). Now they definitely do get
caught by both leopards and lions at times, but the rate of predation is obviously too low to be a
problem for the population -- obvious because otherwise they would not have survived as a species
in their environment.

Is it so?

Quoted message said:

That's also why it's interesting to note that no animal of small or medium size with a slow
reproductive rate (such as humans and chimps) can be found in any aquatic environment anywhere in
the world.

I explained similarities of aquatic and low canopy envirenments, above. Humans are, even
today, living very much on shores.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Firstly, do we see a diference, in that regard, between Old and New (without human
impact) world? That would need more thorough research, but I think I could see a
diference. Further, there is a national park in South Africa, Cape Peninsula National
Park. It is situated on the Cape of Good Hope. There, chacma baboons are roaming beaches
in the fashion similar to what I had in mind. I did have in mind more rocky coast, but
this place also has a lot of steep hills. During low tide, those baboons are feeding on
shark eggs. Now, what sharks have to say on this, lol?

Sharks (some give live birth, some lays eggs that drift with the currents and sometimes drift
ashore) do not hang around their eggs protecting them, and they suffer enormous losses of eggs as
a result, so the fact that creatures eat the eggs when they drift to shore doesn't have anything
to do with shark attack, except that attacks can occur whenever an animal is in the water. (BTW,
I've seen video of a sharks attacking birds and seals that actually made it to shore but were
still being attacked with the shark about a third of the way out of water -- tenacious creatures
when they want to be, sharks.) But this doesn't reduce their numbers because they have a lot of
offspring (crocs, and many other animals, have the same method of getting young to adulthood --
just have lots and lots of them). As for "what sharks have to say on this", just as with
counterattacks on them, they, and crocs, just don't seem to care. That's one part of what makes
them so dangerous, since they don't respond to counterattacks anywhere near as readily as
terrestrial predators tend to.

This with shark eggs was a little joke, of course (this is why I placed a "lol"😉. The point
is that you were wrong that this kind of behaviour wasn't seen anywhere in the world. It is
seen, and furthermore, it is seen in roughly the same environment that I am proposing. It
was documented humans swimming amongst sharks, as well, very often.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why sharks don't attack us, I am not 100% sure. It could be that they don't like animals
with limbs. It could be that they can use us, because we are scaring fish. Maybe this
all has something to do with dolphins. Shark experts usually like to say : If sharks
would attack us, it wouldn't be few isolated cases, that look more like mistakes. It
would be a real bloodshed. No way that we could go anywhere near sea, with all
protection you can find. In water, we are without rock or branches even today. Today
also we are unarmed.

"We", as a species, aren't spending a great deal of time in the water -- some few of "us" do. And
we have decimated many of our predators, and those predators have evolved alongside hominids who
have been vastly better armed than our earliest ancestors for a million years or more. That could
all have something to do with the fact that sharks don't attack us all the time. That does not --
or should not -- become "sharks don't attack us". My point is that we are vastly less likely to be
attacked by aquatic predators than our early ancestors, yet we still are attacked, and we rarely
see it coming and outside of avoiding the environment, fencing it off, or using sophisticated
weapons, there's not much we can do about it. This is very different from the situation with
terrestrial predators.

No, we are not avoiding the environment, or anything you've mentioned. Actually we visit the
environment with our little children. Again, it is not me who sees things wrongly, IMO. It
is a matter of interpretation. And I think your interpretation is wrong. And you only think
it is right because more people thinks similarly. -- Mario

"Philip Nicholls" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Man, don't waste our time. All the irrelevant nonsense you're writing below have nothing to do with
the proposed scenario that our ancestors end Pliocene or begin Pleistocene spread along the coasts
(when early [censored] remains were "suddenly" found from Algeria in the W to Java in the E) where they
evolved more thermoactive sweat glands (salt & water is abundant at the coast, you know).

Alister Hardy (Was Man more aquatic in the past? NS 1960) described how a sea-side life - beach-
combing, wading, swimming, collecting coconuts, shellfish, turtles & turtle eggs, bird eggs, crabs,
seaweeds etc. - explains many human traits (absent in our nearest relatives the chimps) a lot better
than dry savanna scenarios do: very large brain (but reduced olfactory bulb), greater breathing
control, greater diving skills, well-developed vocality, extreme handiness & tool use, reduction of
climbing skills, reduction of fur, more subcutaneous fat, very long legs, more linear body build,
high needs of iodine, sodium & poly-unsaturated fatty acids etc. Hardy was wrong in thinking his
seaside phase happened ~10 Ma. More likely it happened during the Ice Ages: early Pleistocene [censored]
fossils or tools have been found in Israel, Algeria, Iran, Kenya, Georgia, Java. When sea levels
dropped, H.ergaster followed the Mediterranean (pre-antecessor-neandertals) & Indian Ocean coasts
(erectus). Pleistocene coasts during the glacial periods were some 120 m below the present sea
level, so many fossil & archeological finds show the inland [censored] populations that entered the
continents along the rivers & wetlands. In spite of this, [censored] remains (but not australopithecine)
have frequently been found amid shells, corals, barnacles etc., throughout the Pleistocene, in
coasts all over the Old World (eg, Mojokerto, Terra Amata, Table Bay, Eritrea), even on islands that
could only be reached by sea (Flores 0.8 Ma).

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

Marc Verhaegen onelist.comAATOpen ↗
allserv.rug.ac.beVerhaegen.htmlOpen ↗

________

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Phil Nicholls has just recently reposted a lot of info on this (1 Jan

2004

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in sci.anthropology.paleo) so I won't clutter the space here with it.

Why don't you reproduce this nonsense here? Afraid?

I guess Marc defines nonsense as stuff based on articles he won't read.

However, since you asked nicely: (apologies to sci.bio.evolution folks who don't think this is the
place to discuss the AAH and I'm not, but I am providing some information on sweating as it occurs
in primates).

Proposition: Sweating in humans is an evolution anomaly that can only be explained within the
context of convergent evolution as put forth by Morgan in her various books.

----------------------------------------
PRIMATE SWEATING

". . . the chief mystery does not lie in any one of these ANOMALIES [emphasis added], not even
the wonderful brain or the dexterous hands or the miracle of speech. It lies in the sheer number
and variety of the ways in which we differ from out closest relatives in the animal kingdom."
(Morgan, 1990)

One of Morgan's anomalies is eccrine (as opposed to apocrine) gland sweating. Eccrine glands are
associated with hair follicles while apocrine glands open directly onto the skin. There are other
differences as well.

Is eccrine sweat really anomalous?

In Prosimians and New World monkeys the apocrine glands are more numerous. In Old World Monkeys
the distribution is at a ratio of 1:1,
1:2 or 1:3 depending on the body region sampled (Sokolov,
1982:160-169). For the rhesus monkeys, Sokolov remarks that "Except for the lips and ischila
callosities the eccrine glands are plentiful." (Sokolov, 1982, p.165). Johnson and Elozondo
(1974) note that the distribution of eccrine glands in the rhesus monkey is identical to that
observed in humans.

For the chimpanzee, Sokolov notes "All of the features of chimpanzee eccrine glands are similar to
those of humans. In the immature female the apocrine sweat glands are much smaller in size than in
the male. These are fewer in number than the eccrine glands." (Sokolov, 1982, p.169).

Any sweating that occurs in primates is eccrine sweat (see Robertshaw, 1985 for an overview of
sweating in primates vs non-primates. For a look at the research on sweating in primates, see
Hiley, 1976; Johnson and Elizondo, 1974 and Newman et. al., 1970). The first primates were
probably nocturnal, as are many of the living prosimians today. Nocturnal primates do not really
need to worry about overheating. They discharge excess body heat by panting. As a result, the
apocrine glands in Prosimians did not develop a thermo- regulatory role. As primates evolved and
anthropoids appeared and moved into diurnal niches, they continued to pant until two evolutionary
pressures forced a change -- increase in body size and increase in relative brain size.

As body size increases the number of eccrine sweat glands also seems to increase (Robertshaw,
1985). As brain size increases, the size of the nasal sinuses is reduced. Since in closed-mouth
panters this is the place where most of the heat exchange takes place, the increase in brain size
produced a need for an alternative heat rejection system.

Why eccrine glands when apocrine glands are the gland of choice in other mammals? The answer, I
believe, lies in the neurophysiology of sweating. Apocrine glands are controlled by the
sympathetic nervous system. The neurons which control apocrine glands use noradrenline as their
neurotransmitter. Eccrine glands are also controlled by the sympathetic nervous system but unlike
apocrine glands they are cholinergic, i.e. use acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter. The difference
may be compared to playing a piano. Noradrenline works like the pedals, affecting the action of
all the tones being played. Acetylcholine is like the individual piano keys. Cholinergic neurons
are employed where fine control over the effector organs is required. Anthropoid primates need a
greater degree of control over their heat rejection systems because of their larger brains, which
are very sensative to temperature changes.

This is particularly important in [censored] sapiens. Apocrine sweat occurs in bursts which saturate the
skin quickly. The amount of sweat they produce cannot be regulated nor can their action be
sustained for any period of time (Robertshaw, 1985). This is ideal for an animal that needs to
cool off quickly after a period of brief intense activity but are not suited to the task of
regulating body temperature over an extended period of time.

To sum up, eccrine sweating is not anomalous. It is consistant with the trend observed in
anthropoids, established long before the the hominid/pongid split. Apocrine sweat glands never
developed a thermoregulatory role in primates. Eccrine sweating makes makes good sense of
neurophysiological grounds.

-------------------------------

Bligh, J (1967) A thesis concerning the process of secretion and discharge of sweat. Environmental
Search 1:28-51.

Hiley DA (1976) The thermoregulatory responses of the galago (Galago crassicaudatus), the
baboon (Papio cynocephalus) and the chimpanzee (Pan satyrus) to heat stress. Journal of
Physiology, 254:657-670.

Johnson, GS and Elizondo, R (1974) Eccrine sweat gland in Macaca mulatta: physiology,
histochemistry and distribution. Journal of Applied Physiology 37:814-820

Morgan, E. (1990) Scars of Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

Newman, CM; Cummings, EG; Miller; Wright, H (1970) Thermoregulatory responses of the baboon to
heat stress and scopolamine. Physiologists 13:271-285.

Robertshaw, D (1985) Sweat and heat exchange in man and other mammals. Journal of Human Evolution
14: 63-73.

Sokolov, VE (1982) Mammal Skin. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Now I want you to
note that at no time did I mention sweating as an adaptation to savannas. I said that it occurred
in response to (1) body size increase and (2) brain size increase. Thus sweating is not tied to
bipedalism but rather to brain expansion.

Dean Falk proposed an interesting idea concerning the connection between brain size and
bipedalism. She suggested that bipedalism released a constraint on the evolution of brain size,
changing the way in which blood drains from the brain to a pattern that permits more efficient
heat removal.

This suggests a scenerio of bipedalism --> bigger brain--> more efficient thermoregulatory
sweating --> bigger brain -->loss of body hair --> even bigger brains.

It is very likely that many of the so-called anomalous characterisitcs of modern humans did not
appear at the same time and some may have appeared only in the last 100 000 years or so.