arboreal + bipedal = aquarboreal
Lucy was no human ancestor, of course, but a Pliocene relative of gorillas: Gorilla fossil subspecies Praeanthropus afarensis
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
arboreal + bipedal = aquarboreal
Lucy was no human ancestor, of course, but a Pliocene relative of gorillas:
Gorilla fossil subspecies Praeanthropus afarensis
According to your model -- and my model! -- Lucy descended from an
earlier Waterside ancestor. So we'd expect aquatic adaptations. We
could help settle frayed nerves in the savanna cult by saying she was "Transitional," but that's not entirely correct.
I despise linear models.
Whatever Lucy's lifestyle, her anatomy seemed to fit it just fine. Her species is credited with surviving more than twice as long as the
savanna cult claims for so called "modern" humans. And that included
the retention of aquatic traits? So what. As I've pointed out many
times; giant sauropod dinosaurs retained skeletal features of a much smaller, bipedal dinosaur. Unless there's both selective pressure
AGAINST adaptation, AND the genetic capacity (diversity? potential?),
things are going to stay exactly the same.
So I wouldn't be quick to claim she was aquarboreal. Even if she wasn't, having descended from Waterside ancestors we couldn't expect her to
look much if any different.
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703468006592905216
There's 0 doubt (except to savanna fools) that human ancestors were a lot more aquatic than we are today,
but since primates are arboreal, and since evolution is in small steps, there had to be something between,
which spent time both in the trees & in the water.
The idea that apiths were Afr.ape ancestors or relatives was not mine
Our most-aquatic phase (H.erectus AFAWK) was probably early-Pleistocene.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
There's 0 doubt (except to savanna fools) that human ancestors were a lot more aquatic than we are today,
but since primates are arboreal, and since evolution is in small steps, there had to be something between,
which spent time both in the trees & in the water.
All very true, but if you look at the dating for even some of the oldest points of divergence, the LCA was Waterside. Chimps became
arboreal AFTER divergence. Not before. Chimps had to adapt to the
forest, the trees only AFTER divergence. So if Chimps evolved from
something that looked like Lucy, Lucy had ancestors who were NOT
arboreal at all. Lucy is an Aquatic Ape, so to speak, that pushed
inland and adapted to a new environment... possibly with the help
of interbreeding with earlier arrivals.
We know this model is correct, because we do have Neanderthals
(Denisovans and all the others) so it's just a matter of extrapolating
what we already know to a previous point along the timeline.
The idea that apiths were Afr.ape ancestors or relatives was not mine
I'm not disputing it. I actually don't have a horse in that race, whether
it was Lucy or something else very close to Lucy the model doesn't
change.
We have a Waterside population spreading across the globe, with
groups periodically pushing inland where they stay and adapt.. resulting
in diversification. It's also why the Rift Valley is exactly the kind of place where we should find fossils! It had an outlet to the sea. It's
where a Waterside group would push inland, if one were there and
inclined to do so. All we need for this scenario is conflict, or disease,
a natural disaster, really bad weather -- SOMETHING that makes them
"Turn Right" and follow that water inland rather than stay put on the
coast.
Of course this would have all been turbocharged once the
glacial/interglacial cycle was in full swing. We'd have roughly.. I dunno. Maybe 70,000 years of open highways (the continental shelf when
sea levels dropped) punctuated by maybe 10,000 years of isolation, as
the interglacial hit, raising sea levels and cutting everyone off from
each other.
The key here is Aquatic Ape.
The most important piece, the one population that is common to all,
that is everyone's ancestor is that Waterside population! They were
the conduit. As they encountered these far flung groups, interbreeding, exchanging DNA (acquiring advantageous adaptations) they carried
them along to the next group they encountered... and the next...
We only say "Out of Africa" because of Toba. If Yellowstone explodes
tomorrow it'll be like 50 Krakatoas exploding all at once. When Toba
erupted it was roughly 2.8x Yellowstone! https://jtem.tumblr.com/image/176437002088
(Not my image. I stole it off the web. But anyone can Google it if they
doubt what I'm saying)
THIS is why we say "Out of Africa."
Toba exploded, Ground Zero was Sundaland -- the "Asia" in the "Out of
Asia" scenario -- so the other major population center situated along
the equator, away from where the worst of it was going to be, was
Africa.
There. That's the model. That's the fusion of Multiregionalism/Regional Continuity, Punctuated Equilibrium, Coastal Dispersal: Aquatic Ape. Lucy
is an expected (predicted) biproduct of all that. She descended from a
group that peeled off of an earlier group, pushed inland and adapted to
a new environment... resulting in speciation.
Our most-aquatic phase (H.erectus AFAWK) was probably early-Pleistocene.
I think you're too conservative. I'd say that erectus is it. "She sang."
1) Lucy was at most only a partially "aquatic" ape, more precisely, it was an *aquarboreal* ape,
something like (google) "wading gorilla". Ape ancestors have alway remained partly arboreal.
IMO, Miocene Hominoidea spread aquarboreally along Tethys Ocean (later Ind.Ocean + Med.Sea).
2) The more aquatic (shallow-diving) Homo evolved later, late-Pliocene or possibly only early-Pleist.:
Pleist.Homo reached overseas islands, evolved pachyosteosclerosis, large brains, platypelloidy etc.etc.
Yes, Gorilla & HP split c 8 Ma, when the northern part of the E.Afr.Rift formed (Red Sea),
Lucy's ancestors followed the Rift ->Gorilla.
Much later, Taung's ancestors followed the southern part of the E.Afr.Rift ->Pan.
Gorilla & Pan evolved in //
- late-Pliocene "gracile" afarensis//africanus,
- early-Pleist. "robust" boisei//robustus,
- today Afr.apes gorillas//chimps-bonobos.
I'd think Homo & Pan split when the Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean:
-- Pan went right = E.Afr.coastal forests initially,
-- Homo went left = S.Asian coastal forests initially ->shallow-diving early-Pleist.H.erectus Java etc.
*If* there ever was an "Out-of-Africa", it was late-Pleistocene, and perhaps not even all H.sapiens.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Lucy was at most only a partially "aquatic" ape, more precisely, it was an *aquarboreal* ape,
something like (google) "wading gorilla". Ape ancestors have alway remained partly arboreal.
"Vestigial."
The problem here is that the observations support a number of conclusions. They are consistent with Lucy being descended from an aquatic population, and retaining unnecessary/vestigial traits.
IMO, Miocene Hominoidea spread aquarboreally along Tethys Ocean (later Ind.Ocean + Med.Sea).
Well they had to start somewhere, right? So that makes sense.
2) The more aquatic (shallow-diving) Homo evolved later, late-Pliocene or possibly only early-Pleist.:
Pleist.Homo reached overseas islands, evolved pachyosteosclerosis, large brains, platypelloidy etc.etc.
Well Lucy is later.
Yes, Gorilla & HP split c 8 Ma, when the northern part of the E.Afr.Rift formed (Red Sea),
Lucy's ancestors followed the Rift ->Gorilla.
Much later, Taung's ancestors followed the southern part of the E.Afr.Rift ->Pan.
Gorilla & Pan evolved in //
- late-Pliocene "gracile" afarensis//africanus,
- early-Pleist. "robust" boisei//robustus,
- today Afr.apes gorillas//chimps-bonobos.
So our models fit. You're just getting into some firm details which I can't say are firm.
I'd think Homo & Pan split when the Red Sea opened into the Ind.Ocean:
Possible. If so, might've taken as much as a million years for Pan to evolve.
-- Pan went right = E.Afr.coastal forests initially,
-- Homo went left = S.Asian coastal forests initially ->shallow-diving early-Pleist.H.erectus Java etc.
I'd like to explore this more. I do favor an origin of apes outside of Africa.
*If* there ever was an "Out-of-Africa", it was late-Pleistocene, and perhaps not even all H.sapiens.
I see it as < 80k years ago, after Toba.
It's not that "Modern Man" evolved in Africa and then immediately decided that they hate the place, deciding to walk to Australia. Toba erupted with the
energy of 250,000 nuclear warheads, or more, killing off most of Homo, and the populations best suited to survive were in Africa, and the one best suited
to recover quickly & fill the vacuum was the sexually selected group...
Which is one reason why I hate the words "Out of Africa." It doesn't tell us anything about human origins per se. I don't even think that the African group was that distinct. They were probably much better grouped with Eurasians, genetically, than populations elsewhere in Africa. The Bantu certainly were.
"Lucy's skeleton, which is 40 % complete, was recovered in Ethiopia in what was an
ancient lake near fossilized remains of crocodiles, turtle eggs and crab claws."
"Vestigial."
The problem here is that the observations support a number of conclusions. They are consistent with Lucy being descended from an aquatic population, and
retaining unnecessary/vestigial traits.
Lucy was no human ancestor, of course, but a Pliocene relative of Gorilla.
Well Lucy is later.
No, no: Lucy c 3 Ma, H.erectus <2 Ma.
"Lucy's skeleton, which is 40 % complete, was recovered in Ethiopia in what was an
ancient lake near fossilized remains of crocodiles, turtle eggs and crab claws."
But other cites claims that she died from falling out of a tree! And regardless
of manner of death, she wasn't lying there near any crocs, else she would have
been a free meal. She was buried quickly. Or perhaps it was a low point in the
water level, it was the fresh water equivalent to a "Tidal pool" left behind as the
lake receded, perhaps anaerobic waters... I donno.
"Vestigial."
The problem here is that the observations support a number of conclusions.
They are consistent with Lucy being descended from an aquatic population, and
retaining unnecessary/vestigial traits.
Lucy was no human ancestor, of course, but a Pliocene relative of Gorilla.
I'm not at all concerned with whom Lucy's descendants were. I'm speaking of her
ancestors. And her ancestors were aquatic. It wasn't a case of parallel evolution.
Lucy is descended from a group that peeled off from the aquatic population, moved inland... possibly interbreeding with earlier groups too have done so, speeding
it's evolution away from the Homo line.
THAT is what I'm saying. I have no issue with Lucy giving rise to Pan or anything
else.I'm focusing on who gave rise to her, and how.
Well Lucy is later.
No, no: Lucy c 3 Ma, H.erectus <2 Ma.
Lucy came millions of years after the Miocene, which is where you want to put the split. So she's later than the split. She's Pliocene. Not Miocene.
True, it could go the other way. She could be the product of a more primative population -- ardipithecus -- interbreeding with a more derived aquatic group,
but it's six of one, half dozen of the other. You still need aquatic ape pushing
inland leaving Lucy as a descendent.
Again, I am focused on where Lucy came from, her ancestors, not what she
led to, her descendants.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:13:52 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,405 |
| Posted today: | 1 |