Remember, you can't use the brave hunter venturing into the savannah model. Upright Ardi was found to be living in a watery forest.
Brave hunters can't walk in forests?
Besides, there’s evidence of grasslands mixed with the forests in Ardi's habitat, too, so there's still plenty of places for Ardi to go walking around.
Try to race a chimp up a tree.
Deer survive very well in forests without being able to climb trees.
Our sweat not only cools us, it exudes salt. In a salty, sunny environment that is a plus for both categories.
Why would you think the Middle Awash, Ethiopia was a salty environment? And, if it was a forest, “sunny” is probably also dubious. Furthermore, arguing that perspiration is consistent with an aquatic animal is a sure sign of confirmation bias.
I think I’ve been largely convinced by RAZD’s sexual selection argument for human “nakedness.” Uprightness is still up in the air, but I can think of a fair number of hypotheses that explain it equally as well as the aquatic ape hypothesis.
Look, I agree that the aquatic ape hypothesis is somewhat consistent with the evidence, and I’m not philosophically opposed to it, but you’re really trying so hard to make every little, insignificant thing you see into evidence for it that I can’t really consider you credible. Like RAZD said, you’re experiencing confirmation bias.
But, keep on posting new information: it gives me the chance to keep up on the topic of human evolution. I would be very interested to learn of any real evidence for an aquatic phase in human evolution, but I don’t think you’ve really presented anything really substantive.
And, feel free to join in other discussions, too: you’re always welcome.
You would do well to not set yourself philosophically against an idea when the evidence is still somewhat up in the air.
Chimps and Gorillas, and all the monkeys have never found nudity becoming at all.
I think you'll find that arguments by analogy can only go so far. For example, chimps, humans, gorillas, lemurs and spider monkeys don't find blue butts becoming at all, and yet...
That's a male mandrill, the world's largest monkey.
There is so much diversity in animals, even among mammals, that you're not going to be able to support a grand hypothesis like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis just by appealing to similarities with other animals and telling a fun story.
So, what are you saying, Homo floresiensis is a shrunken Homo sapiens? Cladistic analysis puts flo after H habilis. There just are too many ape like features to link it to H erectus, let alone H sapiens.
I don't see anything that RAZD said that even remotely resembles this.
As far as I know this is the latest word on the environment Ardi was found: "According to Scott Simpson, the Gona Project's physical anthropologist, the fossil evidence from the Middle Awash indicates that both A. kadabba and A. ramidus lived in "'a mosaic of woodland and grasslands with lakes, swamps and springs nearby,'" but further research is needed to determine which habitat Ardipithecus at Gona preferred."
You somehow manage to overlook the word I underlined every time you read and quote this. If you were being really honest, you would have to admit that the inclusion of "grasslands" in the habitat of Ardipithecus kind of undermines your only real argument against the "brave hunter on the plains" model.
The reason I don't believe in the brave hunter model is because the few holdouts on the, "Peeking over the grass," impetus for uprightness don't really look at the difficulties presented by this model. The earliest upright walkers had no specialized tools. A pride of lions would make a quick meal of them caught out in the open.
Do you really think these "holdouts" think early hominids suddenly dropped out of the trees, walked away on two legs, and never looked back?
Seriously, put a little thought into this, please!
What intermediate would there be between a tree-dwelling ape and “brave savannah hunter”? Do you think maybe the intermediate would be a facultative biped that could still climb trees? What would such an organism look like? Wouldn’t it look like Ardipithecus?
I gave you three good examples of primates doing just that.
So, what did you think of the three monkeys I portrayed?
I think they're about as relevant to human evolution as three salamanders are to frog evolution.
And you still have not given me any alternative to my belief that would explain what pushed our former ape ancestor into an upright stance.
None that you're willing to consider, anyway.
The point of the problem is that we have an animal that is pretty well intermediate between bipedal and arboreal, and you're wanting to introduce another factor into the equation on the basis of... really, nothing, other than that you happen to be a water-lover and find the idea of a water-based phase of human evolution to be attractive.
The theory that the upright stance evolved so Ardipithecus could gather and carry armloads of food has more support and more parsimony than the aquatic ape theory.
My mind just can't wrap around the notion some ape (The Chimps and Gorillas split at 7 mil) female let the male know she is forsooth a housewife. To carry on the premise, the knuckle walker male set out on a perilous journey to find scarce food. There were predators, and territorial apes to avoid. Finally, after some harrowing near misses, he found some decent chewables, he gathered a bunch under his arm and carefully knuckled to home base. So here is the evolutionary impetus. There is an ever demanding bitch yelling at the male to get more!!!
I don't appreciate your caricatures of my arguments. Please address them as they are and try to refrain from embellishing them with your cornball humor.
Curiously, the situation I depicted is remarkably similar to the way apes live today, except that they don't carry their food very far from where they find it. Perhaps the evolutionary pressures exerted by predators forced Ardipithecus to carry its food back to a safe lair where it could be consumed.
This explanation is far simpler, and merges far more clearly with the data we have about ape and early human lifestyles, than does the aquatic ape hypothesis. It's frankly silly to think that anything more than this sort of simple explanation is needed to explain the evidence we have seen.
Do have a problem with my name? Bluebirds and blue jays are not the same thing. You're trying too hard to be cute and clever.
I have to tell you, though, I was a bit hurt by the way you depicted your rejection of primate behavior as specious as would be a salamander and a frog.
There was as much as 240 million years between the advent of the salamander and the split to the frog. The old world monkeys are just 30 to 40 million years separate from us.
Timeframe doesn't matter. You've pointed out three examples of things that are not on our direct line of descent. So, even if those animals are adapting to the water (and, as RAZD has argued, they are not), what does this mean for us? The animals that fit between us and those monkeys in the Tree of Life are not aquatic, so, clearly, their aquaticism is not related to any putative aquaticism in our heritage.
Anyway the Savannah theory has bit the dust.
What is the "savannah theory"? Is it just the idea that we evolved on the savannah? What does that have to do with the impetus for evolving bipedalism? Is walking not viable in woodlands or in mixed woodlands/grasslands?
The alternatives to the aquatic ape hypothesis are not really as reliant on there being a savannah as you seem to think they are.
I realize Arrogantape hasn't been around for awhile, but there was a new study published recently that is rather pertinent to this discussion that we were having.
Anyway the Savannah theory has bit the dust. The environment Ardi was found in is a world of dense woods, meadows, streams, lakes, and springs.
This article details a new analysis of the put forward for Ardipithecus as a woodland species.
This re-analysis shows that the region Ardipithecus inhabited was clearly a savannah, with perhaps 5% to 25% tree cover. They are careful not to say that they support the "Savannah Hypothesis" (in fact, I think they reject the hypothesis themselves), but they do say that this data does nothing to refute it at all.
So, an alternative explanation for the earliest human evolutionary stages is not currently required or indicated.
That, to me, doesn't sound like it is "clearly savannah" but rather a mixed environment.
Well, a "mixed environment" is what a savannah is. So, my saying that it was clearly a savannah was my saying it was clearly a "mixed environment." (It was also supposed to be my presenting somebody else's conclusion, but it didn't come off that way).
I think the savannah model fits this geographic evidence perfectly. There were tree-climbing, forest apes in the forests; bipedal, grassland apes in the grasslands; and now, bipedal/tree-climbing apes in the savannahs.
This makes it a nice intermediary. I always thought this was the basic idea of the Savannah Hypothesis.