Date   

Re: Homo erectus (sensu stricto) the most aquatically adapted hominin?

fceska_gr
 

Hi Gareth,

 

Would it be possible to reveal the source of this text, please? I’d like to read it.

 

I agree that climate has influenced anthropoid evolution at many stages and in different ways, although I don’t believe sapiens are the most aquatic. I think early Homo was more aquatic than we are now.

 

If we look at the evidence, many of our “aquatic” adaptations stretch back at least as far as the early Miocene and most of the changes seem to be instigated by climatic changes.  

 

[1st aquatic stage: Hominoidea]

30-25 Ma Climate: very hot, humid, subtropical forests; tectonic upheaval and rifting causing vast areas of East Africa to become flooded, creating forested islands in vast East African lakes.

25-20 Ma: orthograde body plan and modifications towards bipedal posture, suspensory adaptations of the wrist, hand, shoulders and arms, larger, wider thorax, loss of tail, etc.
20 – 14 Ma: gradual increase in size from small-bodied primates to large chimp sized apes

Some time between 25 Ma and 16 Ma: partial loss of pelage (great apes relative to macaques)

Overall increase in eccrine gland distribution (between OWMs and apes)

Probable reduction in olfactory ability

PNS

c. 18- 16 Ma Hylobatidae diverge

 

16-14 Ma: Climate: temperature decrease, reduced humidity & loss of biodiversity in Africa; increasing biodiversity, humid sub-tropical forests & vast bodies of water in Eurasia, land bridges between the two continents. Disappearance of most apes from Africa. Appearance of many ape species in Eurasia.

15 Ma: loss of uricase mutation and the ability to store sugars as fat

 

[Hominidae]

15-13 Ma: the ability to fashion stone tools

c. 15-14 Ma: Pongo diverges

14 Ma: plantigrade locomotion (quadrupedal)

12-11 Ma: loss of prognathism, robust jaws, postural bipedalism (wading)

11-9 Ma: Vallesian crisis causes the extinction of many apes (loss of forests, loss of edible fruits, spreading grasslands, seasonal food availability).

10-7 Ma: bipedal hominids roam the river valleys & great lakes of southern Europe & the Tethys-Med coasts.
Smaller, more thickly enamelled dentition – change of diet.

 

[Homininae]

10-6 Ma: terrestrial bipedalism develops

c. 10-8 Ma: gorilla divergence

7 Ma: human-like P4 dental root morphology

6 Ma: human-like foot morphology (loss of arborealism)

 

6-5 Ma: Pan / Homo diverge

5.9 – 5.3 Ma: Mediterranean Salinity Crisis: great unidirectional migrations of fauna away from the southern Med, towards Africa.

5.3 Ma: Zanclean Megaflood cuts off land bridge between Eurasia and Africa.

Pliocene: 5.3 – 2.6 Ma. Sea-levels rise by up to 30 m. Hyper aridity in the Arabian Peninsula prevents migration of fauna eastwards.

During much of this period, the Arabian Peninsula is effectively cut off from the rest of the world.

 

4-3 Ma (PTERV1 virus throughout Africa, affects all African apes, but not Homo or Orangutans)

 

[Panini / Australopithecines]

Climate: Loss of forests and wetlands, increase of savannah and mosaic environments

5-2 Ma: Gradual reversal from upright bipedalism towards arborealism, and eventually, knucklewalking (also in Gorilla – homoplasy).

 

[Early Homo]

2.6 – 2.0 Ma: Pleistocene cooling, sea-level decrease, vast intercontinental shelves appear, land bridges, intertidal zones, migration routes

2.0 Ma: Homo appears: taller, larger with longer legs, increased thoracic capacity, heavier leg bones, heavier crania, larger brain (significant development of cortex associated with vision and manual dexterity), improved dexterity, platycephaly, hooded nose, thick brow ridges, improved shoulder rotation, no evidence of sexual dimorphism
More sophisticated stone tool use, shellfish consumption.

 

[Later Homo]

2.6 Ma – 2.0 Ka: Pleistocene cooling, sea-level decrease, fluctuating temperatures (between glacials).

Ear exostoses, larger brains, heavy bones, multiple crania fractures, larger eyes (cold-water diving?)

 

[Homo sapiens]

300 Ka – present: Holocene (relatively stable climate, less overall humidity)

More gracile forms (taller, thinner – like waders), rounder crania, shorter femoral necks (adaptation for running). Loss of platycephaly, heavy brow-ridges, elongated crania. Brain capacity reduction, flatter faces, smaller teeth, smaller noses, lighter bones, smaller thoracic capacity,

Suggests H. sapiens was more terrestrial than earlier Homo.

 

Present – future? Anthropocene: Global warming, global climate fluctuations, sea-level rise, mass extinction events…where next?

 

Francesca

 

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Gareth Morgan
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:57 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Homo erectus (sensu stricto) the most aquatically adapted hominin?

 

Homo sapiens is, if anything, more aquatic than Homo erectus.

 

 

"As far back as 17 March 1960, Professor Sir Alister Hardy noted in The New Scientist that modern humans have many features that suggest an aquatic phase in our evolution at some time in the distant past.  

The assumption was that a group of primates became isolated on an island or some other inaccessible waterside environment and survived by becoming adapted to a semi-aquatic lifestyle in the course of that single evolutionary event. Subsequent discoveries have provided data that both support and contradict that hypothesis. 

The present investigation proposes an alternative model whereby, over millions of years, a series of emergencies, in the shape of climate fluctuations, from fertile to desert conditions and coinciding with glacial and interglacial epochs, repeatedly imposed very stringent survival pressures on every group of hominids. From the late Miocene onward, scores of such events dictated the selection criteria for gradual adaptation to an opportunistic aquatic diet in a punctuated series of evolutionary steps. 

These adaptations were cumulative, and the fossil record includes progressively more numerous examples of each new version of pre-human and human with the passage of time, progressively larger deposits of bivalve shells and other edible aquatic food species in shell middens, and more widely distributed locations for the stone tools needed to process them efficiently. 

This interpretation of the available evidence satisfies all the significant objections to Hardy’s theory and leads to the conclusion that, physiologically, we are more aquatic now than we have ever been, and the astonishing current world records for breath holding and free diving would seem to support that view."

 

The idea of a single, brief isolation event producing all (or any) of our aquatic adaptations was never really credible.

G.   

 


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of algiskuliukas <algis@...>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:07 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: [AAT] Homo erectus (sensu stricto) the most aquatically adapted hominin?

 

For those of us who are open minded enough to answer Hardy's question "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" with a cautious affirmative, a second question follows "If, so when was that and how much?"

Having thought about this for twenty-five years and studied human evolution (MSc from UCL with distinction and PhD in human bipedal origins from UWA) I have come to the conclusion that the answer to the second question should be "very early modern Homo sapiens ca 200,000 years ago or so"... and... "not much".

Some proponents (e.g. Marc Verhaegen and Stephen Munro) would argue that a better answer would be "Homo erectus (sensu stricto) - i.e. the Asian, rather than African forms" and "that they were predominantly bottom divers."

That's quite a difference.

So, I'd like to discuss this openly to see if I have missed something. 

Let me start the ball rolling...

Marc always cites pacheostosis (heavy bones) of H. erectus as leaving "no other possibility" than bottom diving for this hominin but were their bones really that heavy? If you look at the Nariokotome boy femur, for example, it is remarkably gracile. Where are the papers in the literature that backs up this claim?

Marc also cites their pelvic shape as being platypelloid, with long femoral necks as further evidence but, again, that's not what I see in the literature. Nariokotome boy's pelvis is remarkably narrow actually, android rather than platypelloid. In any case what his platypelloidy got to do with bottom diving? Dugongs/manatees do not share this convergence. Their pelves, appear to be on their way to becoming vestigial like cetacea.

Whether they had heavy bones or not, there is undeniable evidence of significant weight bearing in the bones of Homo erectus. The tibial plate, the oval shaped distal femoral condyles, the robust femoral head, the large acetabulae with superiorly orientated lunate surface. The robust sacral body and large lumbar vertebrae all speak of an upright, walking, terrestrial striding biped - just like us. They seem to have been predominantly striding bipeds, not divers.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Homo erectus did not swim or dive - just that they didn't do so very much, and specifically, not as much as we modern human did, or still do.

When Homo erectus reached the islands of Java and Flores some 1.8 million years ago, they could have done so without getting their feet wet as the current archipelago of Indonesia has been connected via land bridges from time to time. Of course, I have no doubt they often went swimming and diving in coastal shallows but, if they were as adept as Marc suggests (a predominantly bottom diver, remember) then it is remarkable that the narrow strait of water between Bali and Lombok across the Wallace line, just 20km wide, was never crossed by these diving hominins in 1.8 million years. If they did cross, they would have certainly populated the whole of the Australasian continent as that too was all joined by land at various times since. And yet we so no evidence of any human like species in Australia until 60,000 ago or so.

I must remind that modern humans regularly swim across such stretches of open water. The Perth - Rottnest swim is run every year and has thousands of participants. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rottnest_Channel_Swim#:~:text=The%20distance%20is%2019.7%20km,teams%20of%20two%20or%20four.) It is about the same distance as Bali - Lombok via Penida. And of course far greater distances have been crossed than that, such as the Channel between England and France.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but, it seems to me that if we are to remain true to scientific principles we must base our ideas on evidence and here, the evidence is that Homo sapiens is, if anything, more aquatic than Homo erectus.

Algis Kuliukas
Perth
April 2022


Re: Italian Hn dived for shellfish

alandarwinvanarsdale
 

The most recent Neanderthal lithic tradition in Italy has been reassigned to EEMH based upon human fossils. In many parts of Italy the Mousterian and / or Achuelian never happened with other lithic traditions in their place. Usually there is no fossil evidence associated with lithic traditions in Italy. It is likely at least some of the “neanderthals” who were more actively diving were early modern humans or EEMH not neanderthals.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:45 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: [AAT] Italian Hn dived for shellfish

 

Neandertals on the beach:

Use of marine resources at Grotta dei Moscerini (Latium, Italy)

Paola Villa  cs 2020  PLoS One  15:e0226690

doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0226690.

 

Excavated in 1949, Grotta dei Moscerini (MIS-5 to early MIS-4) is 1 of 2

Italian Hn sites with a large assemblage of  retouched shells (n=171)

from 21 layers.

The other occurrence is from  the broadly contemporaneous layer L of

Grotta del Cavallo, S-Italy (n=126).

8 other Mousterian sites in Italy & 1in Greece  also have shell tools,

but in a very small number.

The shell tools are  made on valves of the smooth clam Callista chione.

 

The general idea that  the valves of Callista chione were collected by

Hn on the  beach after the death of the mollusk is incomplete.

At Moscerini, 23.9 %  of the spms were gathered directly from the

sea-floor, as live  animals by skin diving Hn.

Archaeological data from sites in  Italy, France & Spain confirm that

shell-fishing & fresh-water fishing was a common Hn activity, as

indicated by anatomical  studies recently published by E.Trinkaus.

Lithic analysis provides data to show the relation between stone tools &

shell tools.

Several  layers contain pumices derived from volcanic eruptions in the

Ischia  Island or the Campi Flegrei (prior to the Campanian Ignimbrite

mega-eruption).

Their rounded edges indicate:

they were transported  by sea-currents to the beach at the base of the

Moscerini sequence.

 

Their presence in the occupation layers above the beach is discussed.

The most plausible hypothesis is that they were collected by  Hn.

Incontrovertible evidence that Hn collected  pumices is provided by a

cave in Liguria.

Use of pumices as abraders is  well documented in the Upper Paleolithic.

We prove:

the exploitation  of submerged aquatic resources & the collection of

pumices common in  the UP were part of Hn behavior well before Hs

arrival in W-Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Italian Hn dived for shellfish

Marc Verhaegen
 

Neandertals on the beach:
Use of marine resources at Grotta dei Moscerini (Latium, Italy)
Paola Villa cs 2020 PLoS One 15:e0226690
doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0226690.

Excavated in 1949, Grotta dei Moscerini (MIS-5 to early MIS-4) is 1 of 2 Italian Hn sites with a large assemblage of retouched shells (n=171) from 21 layers.
The other occurrence is from the broadly contemporaneous layer L of Grotta del Cavallo, S-Italy (n=126).
8 other Mousterian sites in Italy & 1in Greece also have shell tools, but in a very small number.
The shell tools are made on valves of the smooth clam Callista chione.

The general idea that the valves of Callista chione were collected by Hn on the beach after the death of the mollusk is incomplete.
At Moscerini, 23.9 % of the spms were gathered directly from the sea-floor, as live animals by skin diving Hn.
Archaeological data from sites in Italy, France & Spain confirm that shell-fishing & fresh-water fishing was a common Hn activity, as indicated by anatomical studies recently published by E.Trinkaus.
Lithic analysis provides data to show the relation between stone tools & shell tools.
Several layers contain pumices derived from volcanic eruptions in the Ischia Island or the Campi Flegrei (prior to the Campanian Ignimbrite mega-eruption).
Their rounded edges indicate:
they were transported by sea-currents to the beach at the base of the Moscerini sequence.

Their presence in the occupation layers above the beach is discussed.
The most plausible hypothesis is that they were collected by Hn.
Incontrovertible evidence that Hn collected pumices is provided by a cave in Liguria.
Use of pumices as abraders is well documented in the Upper Paleolithic.
We prove:
the exploitation of submerged aquatic resources & the collection of pumices common in the UP were part of Hn behavior well before Hs arrival in W-Europe.


high & low cortical bone compactness

Marc Verhaegen
 

Gradual adaptation of bone structure to aquatic lifestyle in extinct sloths from Peru
Eli Amson, Christian de Muizon, Michel Laurin, Christine Argot & Vivian de Buffrénil 2014
Proc Biol Sci 281, 20140192
doi 10.1098/rspb.2014.0192

Non-pathological bone densification (osteo-sclerosis) & swelling (pachy-ostosis) are the main modifications affecting the skeleton of land vertebrates (tetrapods) that returned to water,
but a precise temporal calibration of the acquisition of such adaptations is still wanting.

Here we assess the timing of such acquisition, using the aquatic sloth Thalassocnus (Neogene, Pisco Fm, Perù).
This genus is represented by 5 spp, occurring in successive vertebrate-bearing horizons of distinct ages.
It yields the most detailed data about the gradual acquisition of aquatic adaptations among tetrapods (displaying increasing OS & PO through time).
Such modifications (reflecting a habitat shift from terrestrial to aquatic) occurred over a short geological time span, c 4 My.

Otherwise, the bones of terrestrial pilosans (sloths & anteaters) are much more compact than the mean mammalian condition,
this suggests that the OS of Thalassocnus may represent an exaptation.

_______


Evolution of bone cortical compactness in slow arboreal mammals
Fabio Alfieri, John A Nyakatura & Eli Amson 2021
Evolution 75:542-554.
doi 10.1111/evo.14137. 10.1111/evo.14137

Convergent evolution is a major topic in evolutionary biology.
Low bone cortical compactness (CC, a measure of porosity of cortical bone) in the extant genera of "tree-sloths" has been linked to their convergent slow arboreal ecology.
This proposed relationship of low CC with a slow arboreal lifestyle suggests potential convergent evolution of this trait in other slow arboreal mammals.

Femoral & humeral CC were analyzed in "tree-sloths", lorisids, koala & extinct palaeo-propithecids & Megaladapis, vs closely related but ecologically distinct taxa, in a phylogenetic frame-work.
Low CC in "tree-sloths" is unparalleled by any analyzed clade,
and the high CC in extinct sloths suggests the recent convergence of low CC in "tree sloths".
A tendency for low CC was found in Palaeopropithecus & Megaladapis,
but lorisids & the koala yielded unexpected CC patterns,
this prevents the recognition of a straightforward convergence of low CC in slow arboreal mammals.

This study uncovers a complex relationship between CC & convergent evolution of slow arboreality, highlighting the multi-factorial specificity of bone micro-structure.

_______

Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods
S Munro & M Verhaegen 2009 p.28-29 in
NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Conference Kamilari Crete abstracts

Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods
M Verhaegen & S Munro 2011
HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247

Fossil skeletons of H.erectus & related spms typically had heavy cranial & postcranial bones,
it has been hypothesised that these represent adaptations, or are responses, to various physical activities, e.g. endurance running, heavy exertion, aggressive behavior.
But according to the comparative biological data, skeletons that show a combination of disproportionally large diameters, extremely compact bone cortex & very narrow medullary canals are ass.x (semi)aquatic tetrapods that wade and/or dive for sessile foods, e.g. hard-shelled invertebrates in shallow waters.

These so-called pachy-osteo-sclerotic bones (POS) are less supple & more brittle than non-POS bones,
marine biologists agree that they function as hydrostatic ballast for buoyancy control.
Are heavy skeletons in archaic Homo ass.x part-time collection of sessile foods in shallow waters?


POS in Sirenia

Marc Verhaegen
 

Evolution of Sirenian Pachyosteosclerosis,
a Model-case for the Study of Bone Structure in Aquatic Tetrapods
Vivian de Buffrénil cs 2010
J Mamm Evol 17:101-120
doi 10.1007/s10914-010-9130-1

OS (inner bone compaction) & PO (outer hyperplasy of bone cortices, swollen bones) are typical features of tetrapods secondarily adapted to life in water.
These peculiarities are spectacularly exemplified by the ribs of extant & extinct Sirenia:
sea-cows are the best model for studying this kind of bone structural specializations.
How did these features differentiate during sirenian evolution?
The ribs of 15 spp (from the most basal form Pezosiren portelli up to extant taxa) were studied & compared to other mammalian spp morphometrically & histologically.
-- PO was the first of these 2 specializations to occur (mid-Eocene) and is a basal feature of the Sirenia,
but it subsequently regressed in some taxa that do not exhibit hyperplasic rib cortices.
-- OS was only incipient in P.portelli. Its full development occurred later, end-Eocene.
These 2 structural specializations of bone are variably pronounced in extinct & extant Sirenia, rel.independent from each other, although frequently associated.
They are possibly due to similar hetero-chronic mechanisms bearing on the timing of osteoblast activity.
These results are discussed with respect to the functional constraints of locomotion in water.

_____

H.erectus had both PO (thick cortex & narrow medulla) & OS (dense bone):
they were slow & shallow divers, probably in salt water, presumably mostly for shellfish (google "Joordens Munro").
The heavy occiput suggests He frequently back-floated.

H.neand. had still POS, though much less than He,
but Hn had much larger brains than He (adaptation to cold water? google "Manger 2021 Scient Reports 11, 5486"):
was Hn sill largely aquatic, but also/more in freshwater?
did they seasonally follow the Meuse, Rhine etc. inland? following the salmon??
The heavy occiput but large para-nasal sinuses suggest Hn frequently back-floated (google "Oi, big nose?").

--marc


POS in H.erectus

Marc Verhaegen
 

Open Access Research in Anatomy
Preliminary Report:
Pachyosteosclerotic Bones in Seals
Irina Koretsky & Sulman J Rahmat 2017
doi10.31031/OARA.2017.01.000501

Despite extensive knowledge about the distribution of POS (increased bone volume & density) among some modern groups of marine mammals, this aquatic adaptation is not well known in Phocidae (true seals).
POS bones reduce buoyancy, and permit easier submergence for some marine mammals.
PO & PS are 2 vastly different bone adaptations, which have co-occurred independently (POS):
- PO describes the thickening of bone in cross-sectional area,
- OS is the replacement of cancellous bone with compact bone.
OS, PO & bone lightening consecutively occurred to various degrees as adaptations of marine mammals to different environmental niches & lifestyles.
Differing extents of POS has been demonstrated in Recent phocids, otariids & odobenids, Cetacea, Sirenia, sea-birds, fish, reptiles & other aquatic tetrapods.
There have been descriptions of POS among different modern (semi)aquatic animals,
but this osteological condition has never been studied in fossil pinnipeds (specifically in Phocidae true seals), and has not been compared with recent representatives.

Geological evidence suggests:
marine mammals have evolutionarily undergone 3 distinct stages of bone modifications.
1) OS first occurred in tetrapods secondarily adapted to life in water, seen in Sirenia & Cetacea early- to mid-Eocene ~45-50 Ma.
2) Subsequent to OS (replacement of cancellous bone with compact bone) was PO (bone thickening), which appeared from the mid-Eocene.
All lineages of aquatic tetrapods went through OS & PO during the initial stages of aquatic adaptation.
3) The 3rd stage of bone modification was an osteoporotic-like skeletal lightening, occurring only in advanced evolutionary stages as an adaptation for deep diving & fast swimming.
Cetacea exhibits such light bones.

During preliminary examination, the first 2 stages of bone modification (OS & PO) are observed among both extinct & extant seals, extinct walruses & sirenians.
Most likely, POS served as a hydrostatic adaptation (ballast), maintaining static equilibrium in water, during the transition from terrestrial to aquatic life.
Demonstration of variability in bone density is observed in 2 modern spp of seals:
- Pusa hispida ringed seal,
- Pagophilus groenlandicus harp seal.
These 2 taxa are morphologically distinguishable:
- P.hispida has dense (increased compact bone), POS bones,
- Pag.groenlandicus has lighter (more cancellous bone), OS bones.
This difference may in part be explained by the diets of these 2 spp & their diving habits:
- P.hispida feeds on cod, herring, smelt, whitefish, sculpin, perch & other organisms primarily found in shallow Arctic waters,
- Pag.groenlandicus routinely dives up to 100 m to feed on capelin, cod, halibut, herring, redfish & some crustaceans.
Thus,
- P.hispida is able to reduce buoyancy, and remain submerged underwater by having high bone density,
- Pag.groenlandicus can dive deeper, and swim faster.
Despite their sympatric populations in marine Arctic & N-most Atlantic oceans, differing diving depths of these modern seals suggest dietary disparities, due to availability of prey.

(Fig.1)

POS was observed in the bones of the 1st fossil record of the subfamily Cystophorinae:
some extinct true seals did have POS bones.
Morphological examination of these fossil postcrania (mid-Miocene, mid-Sarmatian 11.2-12.3 Ma, S-Ukraine) led to the description of a new genus:
Pachyphoca, with 2 new spp: Pachyphoca ukrainica & chapskii + a mosaic of primitive characters.
Anatomical traits were studied with corresponding morphological functionality, e.g.
the well-developed lesser trochanter of the femur in the smaller species (P.ukrainica) suggests that it was more adapted to terrestrial locomotion than its larger relative P.chapskii,
both new spp are more primitive & better adapted for terrestrial locomotion than any living representatives of the subfamily Cystophorinae.
-- The larger species P.chapskii has innominate bones with a deep, conical acetabulum,
the margins of the acetabular fossa are raised high above the plane surface of the bone.
-- In contrast, the smaller P.ukrainica has:
- a pubis with a big, well-developed ridge for attachment of the obturator muscles (which cause outward rotation of the hip joint),
- a thick, wide & robust ischial spine for attachment of the biceps femoris muscle (hip extensor),
- a deep fossa on the medial aspect of the ilium for attachment of the gluteus medius muscle (also a hip extensor).

Discussion

Koretsky [17] briefly detailed that some fossil postcrania of seals demonstrate thick & swollen (POS) bones that can be mistaken for those of Sirenia such as Manatus maeoticus.
If hyper-saline closed basins developed when the ancient sea in C-Europe dried out, then POS seals & sirenians would have evolved in parallel, but separately, during the same time periods.
Increased skeletal mass would allow taxa to remain submerged for longer periods of time,
it is likely a dietary adaptation for feeding in shallow waters.
POS bones would mean that these taxa swim at slow speeds, and dive only shallow depths, suggesting that they ate slow-moving prey near the ocean floor.
POS among fossil seals is a rel.new discovery: it is hardly remarked at all in literature:
future studies are needed to determine the cause & frequency of POS in marine mammals, esp. true seals.
Upcoming morphological examinations will demonstrate:
is POS an adaptation of true seals that may have helped them successfully adjust from terrestrial to fully aquatic life & to different salinity levels?
or is there an interspecific difference in bone mass, resulting in varying dietary preferences, diving depths and/or ecological niches?
PO in fossil seals (~3-24 Ma) from the Para-Tethys (Europe) & N.America will be examined & compared to representatives of Recent seals, who present this ostological condition.
Future studies will examine diving depths, dietary specializations & ecological niches of taxa with & without POS, to demonstrate the specific cause of this condition.

_____

1) OS, 2) PO.
H.erectus had both OS & PO:
this suggests erectus might have been diving regularly for a longer period: already Pliocene?? --marc


penguin bones are osteo-sclerotic

Marc Verhaegen
 

Bone histology in extant and fossil penguins (Aves: Sphenisciformes)
Daniel T Ksepka cs 2015
Anat.227: 611–630 doi 10.1111/joa.12367

Substantial changes in bone histology accompany the secondary adaptation to life in the water.
This transition is well documented in several lineages of mammals & non-avian reptiles,
but it has received relatively little attention in birds.
This study presents new observations on the long -bone micro-structure of penguins, based on histological sections from
- 2 extant taxa: Spheniscus & Aptenodytes,
- 8 fossil spms, belonging to stem-lineages †Palaeospheniscus & several indeterminate Eocene taxa.

High bone density in penguins results from compaction of the internal cortical tissues:
penguin bones are best considered osteo-sclerotic, rather than pachy-ostotic.
The oldest spms sampled in this study represent stages of penguin evolution that occurred at least 25 My after the loss of flight,
but major differences in humeral structure were observed between these Eocene stem-taxa & extant taxa:
the modification of flipper-bone micro-structure continued long after the initial loss of flight in penguins.

It is proposed:
2 key transitions occurred during the shift from the typical hollow avian humerus to the dense osteo-sclerotic humerus in penguin:
1) a reduction of the medullary cavity occurred, due to a decrease in the amount of peri-medullary osteo-clastic activity,
2) a more solid cortex was achieved by compaction.

In extant penguins & †Palaeospheniscus, most of the inner cortex is formed by rapid osteo-genesis, resulting an initial lattice-work of woven-fibered bone:
open spaces are filled by slower, centri-petal deposition of parallel-fibered bone.
Eocene stem-penguins formed the initial lattice-work,
but the subsequent round of compaction was less complete:
open spaces remained in the adult bone.

In contrast to the humerus, hind-limb bones from Eocene stem-penguins had smaller medullary cavities & thus higher compactness values than extant taxa.

Cortical lines of arrested growth have been observed in extant penguins, but none was observed in any of the current sampled spms:
likely, even these ‘giant’ penguin taxa completed their growth cycle without a major pause in bone deposition:
they did not undergo a prolonged fasting interval before reaching adult size.


Re: Homo erectus (sensu stricto) the most aquatically adapted hominin?

Gareth Morgan
 

Homo sapiens is, if anything, more aquatic than Homo erectus.


"As far back as 17 March 1960, Professor Sir Alister Hardy noted in The New Scientist that modern humans have many features that suggest an aquatic phase in our evolution at some time in the distant past.  

The assumption was that a group of primates became isolated on an island or some other inaccessible waterside environment and survived by becoming adapted to a semi-aquatic lifestyle in the course of that single evolutionary event. Subsequent discoveries have provided data that both support and contradict that hypothesis. 

The present investigation proposes an alternative model whereby, over millions of years, a series of emergencies, in the shape of climate fluctuations, from fertile to desert conditions and coinciding with glacial and interglacial epochs, repeatedly imposed very stringent survival pressures on every group of hominids. From the late Miocene onward, scores of such events dictated the selection criteria for gradual adaptation to an opportunistic aquatic diet in a punctuated series of evolutionary steps. 

These adaptations were cumulative, and the fossil record includes progressively more numerous examples of each new version of pre-human and human with the passage of time, progressively larger deposits of bivalve shells and other edible aquatic food species in shell middens, and more widely distributed locations for the stone tools needed to process them efficiently. 

This interpretation of the available evidence satisfies all the significant objections to Hardy’s theory and leads to the conclusion that, physiologically, we are more aquatic now than we have ever been, and the astonishing current world records for breath holding and free diving would seem to support that view."


The idea of a single, brief isolation event producing all (or any) of our aquatic adaptations was never really credible.

G.   



From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of algiskuliukas <algis@...>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:07 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: [AAT] Homo erectus (sensu stricto) the most aquatically adapted hominin?
 

For those of us who are open minded enough to answer Hardy's question "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" with a cautious affirmative, a second question follows "If, so when was that and how much?"

Having thought about this for twenty-five years and studied human evolution (MSc from UCL with distinction and PhD in human bipedal origins from UWA) I have come to the conclusion that the answer to the second question should be "very early modern Homo sapiens ca 200,000 years ago or so"... and... "not much".

Some proponents (e.g. Marc Verhaegen and Stephen Munro) would argue that a better answer would be "Homo erectus (sensu stricto) - i.e. the Asian, rather than African forms" and "that they were predominantly bottom divers."

That's quite a difference.

So, I'd like to discuss this openly to see if I have missed something. 

Let me start the ball rolling...

Marc always cites pacheostosis (heavy bones) of H. erectus as leaving "no other possibility" than bottom diving for this hominin but were their bones really that heavy? If you look at the Nariokotome boy femur, for example, it is remarkably gracile. Where are the papers in the literature that backs up this claim?

Marc also cites their pelvic shape as being platypelloid, with long femoral necks as further evidence but, again, that's not what I see in the literature. Nariokotome boy's pelvis is remarkably narrow actually, android rather than platypelloid. In any case what his platypelloidy got to do with bottom diving? Dugongs/manatees do not share this convergence. Their pelves, appear to be on their way to becoming vestigial like cetacea.

Whether they had heavy bones or not, there is undeniable evidence of significant weight bearing in the bones of Homo erectus. The tibial plate, the oval shaped distal femoral condyles, the robust femoral head, the large acetabulae with superiorly orientated lunate surface. The robust sacral body and large lumbar vertebrae all speak of an upright, walking, terrestrial striding biped - just like us. They seem to have been predominantly striding bipeds, not divers.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Homo erectus did not swim or dive - just that they didn't do so very much, and specifically, not as much as we modern human did, or still do.

When Homo erectus reached the islands of Java and Flores some 1.8 million years ago, they could have done so without getting their feet wet as the current archipelago of Indonesia has been connected via land bridges from time to time. Of course, I have no doubt they often went swimming and diving in coastal shallows but, if they were as adept as Marc suggests (a predominantly bottom diver, remember) then it is remarkable that the narrow strait of water between Bali and Lombok across the Wallace line, just 20km wide, was never crossed by these diving hominins in 1.8 million years. If they did cross, they would have certainly populated the whole of the Australasian continent as that too was all joined by land at various times since. And yet we so no evidence of any human like species in Australia until 60,000 ago or so.

I must remind that modern humans regularly swim across such stretches of open water. The Perth - Rottnest swim is run every year and has thousands of participants. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rottnest_Channel_Swim#:~:text=The%20distance%20is%2019.7%20km,teams%20of%20two%20or%20four.) It is about the same distance as Bali - Lombok via Penida. And of course far greater distances have been crossed than that, such as the Channel between England and France.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but, it seems to me that if we are to remain true to scientific principles we must base our ideas on evidence and here, the evidence is that Homo sapiens is, if anything, more aquatic than Homo erectus.

Algis Kuliukas
Perth
April 2022


Homo erectus (sensu stricto) the most aquatically adapted hominin?

algiskuliukas
 

For those of us who are open minded enough to answer Hardy's question "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" with a cautious affirmative, a second question follows "If, so when was that and how much?"

Having thought about this for twenty-five years and studied human evolution (MSc from UCL with distinction and PhD in human bipedal origins from UWA) I have come to the conclusion that the answer to the second question should be "very early modern Homo sapiens ca 200,000 years ago or so"... and... "not much".

Some proponents (e.g. Marc Verhaegen and Stephen Munro) would argue that a better answer would be "Homo erectus (sensu stricto) - i.e. the Asian, rather than African forms" and "that they were predominantly bottom divers."

That's quite a difference.

So, I'd like to discuss this openly to see if I have missed something. 

Let me start the ball rolling...

Marc always cites pacheostosis (heavy bones) of H. erectus as leaving "no other possibility" than bottom diving for this hominin but were their bones really that heavy? If you look at the Nariokotome boy femur, for example, it is remarkably gracile. Where are the papers in the literature that backs up this claim?

Marc also cites their pelvic shape as being platypelloid, with long femoral necks as further evidence but, again, that's not what I see in the literature. Nariokotome boy's pelvis is remarkably narrow actually, android rather than platypelloid. In any case what his platypelloidy got to do with bottom diving? Dugongs/manatees do not share this convergence. Their pelves, appear to be on their way to becoming vestigial like cetacea.

Whether they had heavy bones or not, there is undeniable evidence of significant weight bearing in the bones of Homo erectus. The tibial plate, the oval shaped distal femoral condyles, the robust femoral head, the large acetabulae with superiorly orientated lunate surface. The robust sacral body and large lumbar vertebrae all speak of an upright, walking, terrestrial striding biped - just like us. They seem to have been predominantly striding bipeds, not divers.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Homo erectus did not swim or dive - just that they didn't do so very much, and specifically, not as much as we modern human did, or still do.

When Homo erectus reached the islands of Java and Flores some 1.8 million years ago, they could have done so without getting their feet wet as the current archipelago of Indonesia has been connected via land bridges from time to time. Of course, I have no doubt they often went swimming and diving in coastal shallows but, if they were as adept as Marc suggests (a predominantly bottom diver, remember) then it is remarkable that the narrow strait of water between Bali and Lombok across the Wallace line, just 20km wide, was never crossed by these diving hominins in 1.8 million years. If they did cross, they would have certainly populated the whole of the Australasian continent as that too was all joined by land at various times since. And yet we so no evidence of any human like species in Australia until 60,000 ago or so.

I must remind that modern humans regularly swim across such stretches of open water. The Perth - Rottnest swim is run every year and has thousands of participants. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rottnest_Channel_Swim#:~:text=The%20distance%20is%2019.7%20km,teams%20of%20two%20or%20four.) It is about the same distance as Bali - Lombok via Penida. And of course far greater distances have been crossed than that, such as the Channel between England and France.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but, it seems to me that if we are to remain true to scientific principles we must base our ideas on evidence and here, the evidence is that Homo sapiens is, if anything, more aquatic than Homo erectus.

Algis Kuliukas
Perth
April 2022


Hn: lake landscape

Marc Verhaegen
 

Landscape modification by Last Interglacial Neanderthals
Wil Roebroeks cs 2021
Science Advances 7 doi 10.1126/sciadv.abj5567

Little is known about the antiquity, nature & scale of Pleistocene hunter-gatherer impact on their eco-systems, despite the importance for studies of conservation & human evolution.
Such impact is likely to be limited, mainly because of low population densities, and challenging to detect & interpret in terms of cause-effect dynamics.

We present high-resolution paleo-environmental & archaeological data from the Last Interglacial locality of Neumark-Nord, Germany.
Among the factors that shaped vegetation structure & succession in this lake landscape, we identify a distinct ecological footprint of hominin activities, incl. fire use.
We compare these data with evidence from archaeological & baseline sites from the same region.
At Neumark-Nord, notably open vegetation coincides with a virtually continuous c.2000-yr-long hominin presence,
the comparative data strongly suggest that hominins were a contributing factor.
With an age of c.125 ka, Neumark-Nord provides an early example of a hominin role in vegetation transformation.

(open access article,
they think Hn used fire to burn down forests --mv)


mid-Holocene Tp maximum

Marc Verhaegen
 

Northern Hemisphere vegetation change drives a Holocene thermal maximum
Alexander J Thompson cs 2022 Science Advances 8 doi 10.1126/sciadv.abj6535

The Holocene thermal maximum (global warmth in early- to mid-Holocene proxy reconstructions) is controversial.
Most model simulations of the Holocene have not reproduced this warming: the "Holocene Tp Conundrum".
Pollen records document the expansion of vegetation in the early+mid-Holocene African Sahara & N-Hemisphere mid- & high latitudes,
this has been overlooked in previous modeling studies.
Here we use time slice simulations of the Community Earth System Model, to assess the impact of N-Hemisphere vegetation change on Holocene annual mean Tps.

Our simulations indicate:
expansion of N-Hemisphere vegetation 9 & 6 ka warms Earth’s surface by ~0.8° & 0.7°C resp., producing a better match with proxy-based reconstructions.
Our results suggest:
vegetation change is critical for modeling Holocene Tp evolution.
We highlight its role in driving a mid-Holocene Tp maximum.


early-Miocene ulna WS-65401 (Turkanapith.kalakolensis?) already suspensory?

Marc Verhaegen
 

Morphological affinities of a fossil ulna (KNM-WS 65401) from Buluk, Kenya
Abigail Nishimura cs 2022 J.hum.Evol.166,103177 doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103177

The morphological affinities of the late early-Miocene primate proximal ulna WS-65401 from Buluk are appraised (KNM = Kenya Nat.Museums).
We collected 9 3D-landmarks on ulnae from 36 extant anthropoid spp (152 individuals), WS-65401 & a subset of 14 landmarks on 6 ulnae from other E.African Miocene catarrhines.
3D geometric morphometric techniques were used, linear dimensions commonly cited in the literature were derived from the landmark data.

WS-65401 is situated between monkeys & hominoids (principal components morphospace):
- shares a short olecranon process, broad trochlear notch & laterally oriented radial notch with extant hominoids,
- shares an anteriorly directed trochlear notch & flat, proximo-distally elongated & AP-narrow radial notch with extant monkeys.
Principal component scores & linear metrics generally align WS 65401-with both suspensors & arboreal quadrupeds,
but quadratic & linear discriminant analyses of principal component score data provide posterior probabilities of 80 & 83 % resp. for assignment of WS-65401 to the suspensory group.
WS 65401 (vs fossil ulnae from other Miocene primates) is morphologically
- most distinct from KNM-LG-6, attributed to Dendropith.macinnesi,
- most similar to KNM-WK-16950R, attributed to Turkanapith.kalakolensis.
WS-65401 likely possessed more enhanced capabilities for elbow joint extension (suspension?) than vs other Miocene primates in the sample.


Re: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

algiskuliukas
 

Dear Francesca

I can't wait to hear your talk about your ideas and also to read your book when it comes out, so I won't comment on the outlined ideas above until afterwards.

I just want to voice my frustration here that, 50 years after Elaine's best seller, we still can't even decide what the damned thing should be called.

20 years ago it struck me that what was needed was an all encompassing umbrella term which set a low bar, at the lowest common denominator of all of them. I was proud that Elaine agreed and in 2011 we published a joint chapter in the Vaneechoutte et al book where we defined "Waterside hypotheses of human evolution" in such terms. 

Under this umbrella term, individual proponents can continue to promote their own angles. Littoral hypothesis. Semi aquatic ancestors. Marine chimpanzee. Coastal dispersal theory. River Apes... Coastal People Whatever you like. For me, I also use it as an umbrella under which specific testable hypotheses can be defined... the wading hypothesis of hominid bipedal origins. The floatation hypotheses of infant adipocity. The drag reduction hypothesis of the human body hair pattern. The diving hypothesis of the descended larynx. etc.

I started WHAT talks to promote this all inclusive approach. I hope proponents see that such a broad label has wider appeal than any specific term.

All of this reminds me of that old Jewish saying: ask two Jews and you get three opinions. Here we have something like that: ask 7 "aquatic ape" proponents what they call their idea and you get 10 answers.

Best regards

Algis



On Mon, 11 Apr 2022, 8:17 pm , <f-ceska@...> wrote:
Yes, it's a confusing business. That's why I shared a link to my Aquatic Ancestors website where I write about the controversy surrounding the name Aquatic Ape Theory and the various different manifestations of the same idea. I prefer (Semi)-Aquatic Human Ancestor Theory, because I think that covers everything.
www.aquatic-human-ancestor.org

Personally I think it's a muddle because almost all of it applies at different times. There was no single immersion, but many, going back to at least 25 Ma. We tend to forget that the world was a much more humid place in the Miocene jungles of Africa and Eurasia. There was much more water everywhere than we have ever known.

In the early-mid Miocene our first ape ancestors were probably aquarboreal as Marc says, becoming orthograde and potentially posturally bipedal from regular wading in flooded forests, which were a mixture of both marine and fresh water (as are the East African lakes).
In the middle-late Miocene, they probably became more terrestrially bipedal, especially after the Vallesian when forests gave way to grasslands and river basins in Europe.
By the late Miocene / MSC, there were already fully bipedal hominids (hominines?) on Crete, which suggests they had already started adapting to coastal zones.

Going by my own working hypothesis:
5.3 Ma During the mass migration of fauna away from the drying Mediterranean basin towards Africa, the Zanclean Megaflood caused the split between Homo and Pan, with Pan occupying the African Red Sea coast and eventually following the rift down to South Africa (Australopithecus africanus, etc.), while Homo was stranded on the Arabian coast of the Red Sea during the Pliocene. No trees and only desert behind them, no way back and no way forward, so this would have been our most aquatic phase and I think most of Elaine's aquatic "differences" occurred during this period (5.3 - 2.6 Ma). Temperatures were 6 degrees or so hotter, sea-levels were 30m higher. There'd be nothing to do but stay in the water all day, and probably why we retain hair on our heads. Too many dangers and too hot to remain on land without cover. Shallow diving and shellfish consumption.

After 2.6 Ma, (early Pleistocene when sea levels fell) there was a radiation of aquatically transformed Homo from the Red Sea: north, east, south and west so that evidence of Homo exists from China 2.1 Ma and South Africa 2.04 Ma, Pakistan & Java 1.9 Ma, Georgia 1.85 Ma, etc.

But: fur loss is indicated to stem from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, so it's likely the LCA was already partially furless at least and probably bipedal, as well as being able to use stone tools. All great apes can and do walk bipedally, use or fashion stone tools, lack underfur, can suffer from obesity, etc. Chimps have hymens, go through a naked stage in utero where they have flat faces, adducted halluces and look more human than ape-like. Their fur grows in the last month of pregnancy while we are getting covered in greasy cheese (vernix!) Bonobos often have webbed toes and bipedal leg muscles. All this suggests a semi-aquatic ancestor of all great apes, but especially for the LCA, although finally a more prolonged and intense aquatic period for Homo. This means that chimps regrew their fur and reverted to knuckle-walking much later in their evolution, while we retained the more ancestral condition and then increased the differences during our most aquatic phase.

There have also been calls among scientists to reclassify our species as Pan sapiens, and by others to classify Pan as Homo, due to the genetic closeness of our two lineages, so maybe Michel wasn't that far off in referring to us as marine chimpanzees!

Best wishes,

Francesca


-----Original Message-----
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:36 PM
To: algiskuliukas <algis@...>
Cc: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

Hi Algis,
yes, I agree it's best not to use the word "chimpanzee": chimps also have changed drastically since the H/P LCA (c 5 Ma?).
We don't know how aquatic this LCA was, I'd think it was aquarboreal (in mangrove forests?): climbing, wading, swimming probably, but diving?
We were no dolphins, of course, but no doubt H.erectus (POS etc.) & our ancestors (at least until mid-Pleistocene?) were predom.slow+shallow shellfish-divers.
Why not use Stephen Munro's term "coastal dispersal" theory or hypothesis (of Pleistocene/archaic Homo)?

And thank you, Algis, for your WHAT talks!
Best  --marc

_______


    ------ Origineel bericht ------
    Van: algis@...
    Aan: m_verhaegen@...
Cc: AAT@groups.io
    Verzonden: maandag 11 april 2022 13:05
    Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

         Thanks Marc
Yes, Michel gave a lovely talk. Amazing. And to remember, he is 92!! How wonderful to witness him and Michael Crawford conversing too. (There's hope for us all!)

I do not dispute his term "marine" (as opposed to merely "aquatic") for the reasons you point out , of course. However I think marine implies something more aquatic than we ever were, something like a dolphin. I therefore prefer "coastal" or your "littoral" for later Homo, as this makes it clear that were always somewhat terrestrial too.

I must say, I don't like the use of the word "chimpanzee" in any label.
We are most certainly not chimpanzees and, as Elaine's work showed, it's the differences between us and chimps that are most interesting and give most evidence for a more aquatic past. If the French (and Polish) do not have a word for "ape" that is hardly a reason to relabel the whole idea.

Similarly, with "concept", I understand that lay people might not be able to distinguish a theory from an hypothesis but I think if we want this to be taken seriously by scientists we should phrase it as an hypothesis or (as I prefer) a series of hypotheses (plural).

So, although I loved his talk and he made some very good points, I remain unmoved from the feeling that Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution remain the best all-round umbrella term, under which any individual idea can be expressed and remain completely compatible with it.

For me, personally, I still think the label "River Apes ... Coastal People" ticks all the boxes, as I've thought now for 24 years.

Anyway, thanks as always, for your great work, your input and support.

Best wishes

Algis Kuliukas



On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:26 AM Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>
wrote:
Hi all,  Beautiful lecture from a 92-year old: he'd call the aquatic ape
theory: The marine chimpanzee concept.  Michel made it clear IMO that until recently we must have been "marine"  (rather than simply
"aquatic"): -vernix caseosa, -huge brain, -iodine needs.  When the Red
Sea opened to the Gulf (5 Ma?) -P        ------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: m_verhaegen@...     Aan: AAT@groups.io     Verzonden: vrijdag
8 april 2022 12:23     Onderwerp: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent
Sunday 10th April (8pm  West Australian Time)
------ Origineel bericht ------  Van: algis.kuliukas@...   Aan:
algis.kuliukas@...  Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2022 05:24
Onderwerp: WHAT TALK #06 Michel  Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West
Australian Time)            Dear One  and All     I am actually quite
nervous with excitement about sending this invite  to you. I still can't
quite believe I'm doing it.     I am especially privileged to invite you
to the 6th WHAT (Waterside  Hypotheses/Aquatic Theory) Talk as the guest speaker this month is the  world renowned French obstetrician, Michel Odent, perhaps most famous  for his advancement of the use of birthing tubs in child birth, although  I know he'd rather be recognised for his pioneering work promoting  early, post-partum, skin-to-skin contact
between mother and baby.       More about Michel below but first, some
global zoom meeting "admin".     The talk is this Sunday (the day after
tomorrow). Please be careful  to check the start time for you locally.
It is difficult to choose a  start time that suits everyone in the world but around mid-day in Europe  seems to work quite well. For Michel in France, the talk will start at  1pm in the afternoon. So, for anyone tuning in in the UK, it'll be noon.  Here, in Western Australia it will be 8pm. In the Eastern Australian  States it'll be 10pm and in the Eastern seaboard in the USA it'll be 7am  in the morning (still Sunday
though.)     Use this global time map to help you, but please check, as
each  country might have local daylight-saving procedures going on.
The talk will be around 40 minutes or so, after which there will be  an opportunity for questions and discussions. I am using Zoom's waiting room feature this time so please be patient when you follow the link as I have no idea how many will be attending. As  always, please make sure you're on mute during the talk and, as always, it will be recorded and
posted to our YouTube channel and onto the web site.     Please feel
free to share this email invite with anyone you think  might be interested in why we are so different, physically, from the  chimpanzee.
Also, if you haven't already done so, please view the previous five
talks by following the links below...      WHAT Talks You Tube Channel
or     WHAT Talks Web site.     Remember, you can go to whattalks.com
from any browser, just by  typing "whattalks.com" directly into the
address line. (No need to  search Google.)     A link to the meeting
will be placed on the web site home page on the  day of the talk too, in
case you lose this email somehow.     So... see you on Sunday!!     All
the best     Algis Kuliukas     Now...     Michel Odent     Biographical
Sketch     Michel Odent, MD, has been in charge of the surgical unit and
the  maternity unit at the Pithiviers (France) state hospital (1962-1985).  During many years he has been the only doctor in charge of
about 1000  births a year.    Michel is most proud that he wrote the
first article about the  initiation of lactation during the hour following birth (1977). Most  significant here is that he was the author of the first article in the  medical literature about the use of birthing pools (Lancet 1983).  Michael also wrote the first article applying the ‘Gate Control Theory  of Pain’ to obstetrics (1975). He coined the term “hormone of love” when  mentioning oxytocin. He created the Primal Health Research database  (www.primalhealthresearch.com).  He has been a member of the  Professional Advisory Board of La Leche League
International for about  40 years.    Michel Odent is Visiting Professor
at the Odessa National Medical  University and Doctor Honoris Causa of
the University of Brasilia.     Talk Outline    "Selling the Marine
Chimpanzee Concept"   Several trustable persons - including Elaine
Morgan – have suggested  that the term “aquatic ape” is hardly marketable. Who can help us to  renew our  vocabulary? We’ll follow the advice of Stephen Munro, who  expressed his point of view during a previous “WHAT talk” session. He  emphasized that we should not waste time with experts, and offered a  list of valuable potential advisers.
MEETING LINK     Algis Kuliukas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom
meeting.   Topic: WHAT Talk #06 - Michel Odent   Time: Apr 10, 2022
07:30 PM Perth    Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88649520649?pwd=bWNrRVFrQXFzQi9paGhhd3czOWVNUT09
Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649   Passcode: 326765   One tap mobile
+12532158782,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (Tacoma)
+16699006833,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (San Jose)    Dial by your
location           +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)           +1 669 900 6833
US (San Jose)           +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)           +1 929
436 2866 US (New York)           +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)   Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649   Passcode:
326765   Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kenT1wuaZd
-------------------------------------- Dr Algis Kuliukas Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology

-- Geriausi linkėjimai / Best regards
Algis Kuliukas





Re: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

terry turner
 

Thank you for the transcript.
There is no reason to insist on just one species of aquatic ape, just as there were a number of terrestrial human species known.
There are both marine and freshwater species of dolphins. At some time in the past they would not have been as differentiated as they are today.
Human need to retain hands for feeding blocked our becoming anymore aquatic than we are today. So both marine and freshwater humans would not have drifted much from each other.
Terry


On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:38 PM Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:
Dear Michel,
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I totally agree and your talk was really
interesting. I believe Simon Bearder also questioned the term and
suggested “amphibious ape”. The term “aquatic ape” has become anathema
to many in the scientific community. It’s become synonymous with
pseudo-science and mermaid theories. It’s such a shame because we all
want to uphold Elaine’s legacy.  I’m writing a book and still don’t know
what to call it because as soon as aquatic is mentioned in the title,
most people will walk away. I was using “How We Became Human” but now
have reverted to “Semi Aquatic (Human) Ancestors” but I still don’t
know. It may change many times before I’m finished! I do feel as if the
tide is beginning to turn, so to speak, and there is an awakening
interest in all “waterside theories of human evolution” although
scientists are focusing more on upper Palaeolithic Homo at the moment.
Best wishes,  Francesca


Thanks, Francesca.  I've written a 2nd book (mostly an update of my 1st
book "In den beginne was het water" - title after the original Bible
translation in Dutch "In den beginne was het woord" (modern Dutch would
be "In 't begin was er het woord" or so),
but I think to sell I'd had better used another title, therefore we're
thinking now of simply using "De evolutie van de mens" for my 2nd book
(which probably will be published within a few months),
perhaps with subtitle(s) "Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken"
and/or "Medische en biologische Inzichten en recente fossiele vondsten".
In any case, as Michel says, I'd avoid using "aquatic ape" (in Dutch
"wateraap" is usu.used, but "aap" = anthropoid/simian, and "mensaap" =
ape) although it isn't wrong IMO.  --marc

______


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Michel OdentSent:
Monday, April 11, 2022 4:18 PMTo: AAT@...: algiskuliukas
Subject: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm
West Australian Time)


Dear Francesca,
Thank you for your comments. My point of departure was a question: Why
do the media ignore the term “aquatic ape”, even when publishing
biographies of Elaine? Are there more mediatic terms? I just provided
reasons to consider the issue of “marketing” (how to sell …?).
Michel


On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:17 PM fceska_gr via groups.io
<f-ceska=odysseysailing.gr@groups.io> wrote:

Yes, it's a confusing business. That's why I shared a link to my Aquatic
Ancestors website where I write about the controversy surrounding the
name Aquatic Ape Theory and the various different manifestations of the
same idea. I prefer (Semi)-Aquatic Human Ancestor Theory, because I
think that covers everything. www.aquatic-human-ancestor.org Personally
I think it's a muddle because almost all of it applies at different
times. There was no single immersion, but many, going back to at least
25 Ma. We tend to forget that the world was a much more humid place in
the Miocene jungles of Africa and Eurasia. There was much more water
everywhere than we have ever known. In the early-mid Miocene our first
ape ancestors were probably aquarboreal as Marc says, becoming
orthograde and potentially posturally bipedal from regular wading in
flooded forests, which were a mixture of both marine and fresh water (as
are the East African lakes). In the middle-late Miocene, they probably
became more terrestrially bipedal, especially after the Vallesian when
forests gave way to grasslands and river basins in Europe. By the late
Miocene / MSC, there were already fully bipedal hominids (hominines?) on
Crete, which suggests they had already started adapting to coastal
zones. Going by my own working hypothesis:5.3 Ma During the mass
migration of fauna away from the drying Mediterranean basin towards
Africa, the Zanclean Megaflood caused the split between Homo and Pan,
with Pan occupying the African Red Sea coast and eventually following
the rift down to South Africa (Australopithecus africanus, etc.), while
Homo was stranded on the Arabian coast of the Red Sea during the
Pliocene. No trees and only desert behind them, no way back and no way
forward, so this would have been our most aquatic phase and I think most
of Elaine's aquatic "differences" occurred during this period (5.3 - 2.6
Ma). Temperatures were 6 degrees or so hotter, sea-levels were 30m
higher. There'd be nothing to do but stay in the water all day, and
probably why we retain hair on our heads. Too many dangers and too hot
to remain on land without cover. Shallow diving and shellfish
consumption. After 2.6 Ma, (early Pleistocene when sea levels fell)
there was a radiation of aquatically transformed Homo from the Red Sea:
north, east, south and west so that evidence of Homo exists from China
2.1 Ma and South Africa 2.04 Ma, Pakistan & Java 1.9 Ma, Georgia 1.85
Ma, etc. But: fur loss is indicated to stem from a common ancestor of
chimpanzees and humans, so it's likely the LCA was already partially
furless at least and probably bipedal, as well as being able to use
stone tools. All great apes can and do walk bipedally, use or fashion
stone tools, lack underfur, can suffer from obesity, etc. Chimps have
hymens, go through a naked stage in utero where they have flat faces,
adducted halluces and look more human than ape-like. Their fur grows in
the last month of pregnancy while we are getting covered in greasy
cheese (vernix!) Bonobos often have webbed toes and bipedal leg muscles.
All this suggests a semi-aquatic ancestor of all great apes, but
especially for the LCA, although finally a more prolonged and intense
aquatic period for Homo. This means that chimps regrew their fur and
reverted to knuckle-walking much later in their evolution, while we
retained the more ancestral condition and then increased the differences
during our most aquatic phase. There have also been calls among
scientists to reclassify our species as Pan sapiens, and by others to
classify Pan as Homo, due to the genetic closeness of our two lineages,
so maybe Michel wasn't that far off in referring to us as marine
chimpanzees!Best wishes,Francesca -----Original Message-----From:
AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc VerhaegenSent: Monday,
April 11, 2022 2:36 PMTo: algiskuliukas <algis@...>Cc:
AAT@...: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th
April (8pm West Australian Time)Hi Algis,yes, I agree it's best not to
use the word "chimpanzee": chimps also have changed drastically since
the H/P LCA (c 5 Ma?).We don't know how aquatic this LCA was, I'd think
it was aquarboreal (in mangrove forests?): climbing, wading, swimming
probably, but diving?We were no dolphins, of course, but no doubt
H.erectus (POS etc.) & our ancestors (at least until mid-Pleistocene?)
were predom.slow+shallow shellfish-divers.Why not use Stephen Munro's
term "coastal dispersal" theory or hypothesis (of Pleistocene/archaic
Homo)?And thank you, Algis, for your WHAT talks!Best  --marc_______
------ Origineel bericht ------    Van: algis@...    Aan:
m_verhaegen@...: AAT@groups.io    Verzonden: maandag 11 april
2022 13:05    Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday
10th April (8pm West Australian Time)         Thanks MarcYes, Michel
gave a lovely talk. Amazing. And to remember, he is 92!! How wonderful
to witness him and Michael Crawford conversing too. (There's hope for us
all!)I do not dispute his term "marine" (as opposed to merely "aquatic")
for the reasons you point out , of course. However I think marine
implies something more aquatic than we ever were, something like a
dolphin. I therefore prefer "coastal" or your "littoral" for later Homo,
as this makes it clear that were always somewhat terrestrial too.I must
say, I don't like the use of the word "chimpanzee" in any label. We are
most certainly not chimpanzees and, as Elaine's work showed, it's the
differences between us and chimps that are most interesting and give
most evidence for a more aquatic past. If the French (and Polish) do not
have a word for "ape" that is hardly a reason to relabel the whole
idea.Similarly, with "concept", I understand that lay people might not
be able to distinguish a theory from an hypothesis but I think if we
want this to be taken seriously by scientists we should phrase it as an
hypothesis or (as I prefer) a series of hypotheses (plural).So, although
I loved his talk and he made some very good points, I remain unmoved
from the feeling that Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution remain the
best all-round umbrella term, under which any individual idea can be
expressed and remain completely compatible with it.For me, personally, I
still think the label "River Apes ... Coastal People" ticks all the
boxes, as I've thought now for 24 years.Anyway, thanks as always, for
your great work, your input and support.Best wishesAlgis KuliukasOn Mon,
Apr 11, 2022 at 3:26 AM Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>wrote:Hi
all,  Beautiful lecture from a 92-year old: he'd call the aquatic
apetheory: The marine chimpanzee concept.  Michel made it clear IMO that
until recently we must have been "marine"  (rather than
simply"aquatic"): -vernix caseosa, -huge brain, -iodine needs.  When the
Red Sea opened to the Gulf (5 Ma?) -P        ------ Origineel bericht
------ Van: m_verhaegen@...     Aan: AAT@groups.io     Verzonden:
vrijdag 8 april 2022 12:23     Onderwerp: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel
Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm  West Australian Time) ------ Origineel
bericht ------  Van: algis.kuliukas@...   Aan:
algis.kuliukas@...  Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2022
05:24Onderwerp: WHAT TALK #06 Michel  Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West
Australian Time)            Dear One  and All     I am actually quite
nervous with excitement about sending this invite  to you. I still can't
quite believe I'm doing it.     I am especially privileged to invite you
to the 6th WHAT (Waterside  Hypotheses/Aquatic Theory) Talk as the guest
speaker this month is the  world renowned French obstetrician, Michel
Odent, perhaps most famous  for his advancement of the use of birthing
tubs in child birth, although  I know he'd rather be recognised for his
pioneering work promoting  early, post-partum, skin-to-skin contact
between mother and baby.       More about Michel below but first, some
global zoom meeting "admin".     The talk is this Sunday (the day after
tomorrow). Please be careful  to check the start time for you locally.
It is difficult to choose a  start time that suits everyone in the world
but around mid-day in Europe  seems to work quite well. For Michel in
France, the talk will start at  1pm in the afternoon. So, for anyone
tuning in in the UK, it'll be noon.  Here, in Western Australia it will
be 8pm. In the Eastern Australian  States it'll be 10pm and in the
Eastern seaboard in the USA it'll be 7am  in the morning (still Sunday
though.)     Use this global time map to help you, but please check, as
each  country might have local daylight-saving procedures going on. The
talk will be around 40 minutes or so, after which there will be  an
opportunity for questions and discussions. I am using Zoom's waiting
room feature this time so please be patient when you follow the link as
I have no idea how many will be attending. As  always, please make sure
you're on mute during the talk and, as always, it will be recorded and
posted to our YouTube channel and onto the web site.     Please feel
free to share this email invite with anyone you think  might be
interested in why we are so different, physically, from the  chimpanzee.
Also, if you haven't already done so, please view the previous five
talks by following the links below...      WHAT Talks You Tube Channel
or     WHAT Talks Web site.     Remember, you can go to whattalks.com
from any browser, just by  typing "whattalks.com" directly into the
address line. (No need to  search Google.)     A link to the meeting
will be placed on the web site home page on the  day of the talk too, in
case you lose this email somehow.     So... see you on Sunday!!     All
the best     Algis Kuliukas     Now...     Michel Odent     Biographical
Sketch     Michel Odent, MD, has been in charge of the surgical unit and
the  maternity unit at the Pithiviers (France) state hospital
(1962-1985).  During many years he has been the only doctor in charge of
about 1000  births a year.    Michel is most proud that he wrote the
first article about the  initiation of lactation during the hour
following birth (1977). Most  significant here is that he was the author
of the first article in the  medical literature about the use of
birthing pools (Lancet 1983).  Michael also wrote the first article
applying the ‘Gate Control Theory  of Pain’ to obstetrics (1975). He
coined the term “hormone of love” when  mentioning oxytocin. He created
the Primal Health Research database  (www.primalhealthresearch.com).  He
has been a member of the  Professional Advisory Board of La Leche League
International for about  40 years.    Michel Odent is Visiting Professor
at the Odessa National Medical  University and Doctor Honoris Causa of
the University of Brasilia.     Talk Outline    "Selling the Marine
Chimpanzee Concept"   Several trustable persons - including Elaine
Morgan – have suggested  that the term “aquatic ape” is hardly
marketable. Who can help us to  renew our  vocabulary? We’ll follow the
advice of Stephen Munro, who  expressed his point of view during a
previous “WHAT talk” session. He  emphasized that we should not waste
time with experts, and offered a  list of valuable potential advisers.
MEETING LINK     Algis Kuliukas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom
meeting.   Topic: WHAT Talk #06 - Michel Odent   Time: Apr 10, 2022
07:30 PM Perth    Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88649520649?pwd=bWNrRVFrQXFzQi9paGhhd3czOWVNUT09
Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649   Passcode: 326765   One tap mobile
+12532158782,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (Tacoma)
+16699006833,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (San Jose)    Dial by your
location           +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)           +1 669 900 6833
US (San Jose)           +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)           +1 929
436 2866 US (New York)           +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1
312 626 6799 US (Chicago)   Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649   Passcode: 326765
Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kenT1wuaZd
-------------------------------------- Dr Algis Kuliukas Anatomy,
Physiology and Human Biology-- Geriausi linkėjimai / Best regardsAlgis
Kuliukas






Re: The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean

Marc Verhaegen
 

I thought hypothetically
- India approaching Asia c 25 Ma = cercopithecoid/hominoid split N/S c 30 Ma?
- India further under Asia = great/lesser ape split W/E c 20 Ma?
- Mesopotamian Seaway closure c 15 Ma = hominid/pongid split W/E?
- opening Great Rift c 8 Ma = G/HP split W/E?
- opening Red Sea in Ind.Ocean c 5 Ma = H/P split E/W?
I had thought, P turned right (E.Afr.shores), H turened left (S.Asian shores),
but yes, other scenarios are well thinkable:
the parallel evolution G//P suggests they underwent +-the same environments,
e.g. G = E.Afr.Rift & P = C-Afr.Rift? then only H colonized the Ind.Ocean shores after 5 Ma, in E.Africa & S.Asia?

______

------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: f-ceska@...
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: maandag 4 april 2022 19:15
Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean

MV: some of them (e.g. Trachilos) had remarkably humanlike feet, but that doesn't mean they were very close relatives of our ancestors?

There's no evidence they weren't either, and although it's a long shot to say that a probably very small population that may have been stranded on Crete for up to 4 million years before the MSC were our actual original ancestral population, I wonder if they might not have intermingled and exchanged genes once more with the larger population from the mainland, perhaps a descendant of Graecopithecus, which already had more human-like than chimp-like root fusion on their molars, and was most-likely terrestrially bipedal. This might tie in with genetic evidence that suggested an initial separation between Pan/Homo before final separation before 6.3 Ma (Patterson, et al., 2006). In any case, the Trachilos prints appear more human-like than the Laetoli prints from Africa made much, much later, which are more Pan-like.

MV: Were the coastal forms along the Ind.Ocean (Afr.Pan + S.Asia Homo?) more erectus-like? & the inland forms (e.g. habilis??) more africanus-like?

Yes: Indian Ocean you have Homo erectus, Meganthropus, Homo floresiensis, Homo luzonensis (all more Homo like).
From Africa you have Homo habilis, Homo naledi (more Pan like).

A radiation in all directions from the Red Sea, once sea-levels fell in the early Pleistocene, c. 2.6 Ma would explain how there are signs of Homo from far East China: 2.0+ Ma, from South Africa: c.2.0 Ma, from Pakistan / India / Java: c. 1.9 Ma, from Georgia: 1.8 Ma, and put an end to the Out of Africa or Out of Asia back and forth arguments. It wasn't either. It was from somewhere in the middle, cut off from Africa and the rest of the world while sea levels were 30 m higher than today and the Arabian Peninsula was a land-locked desert. IMO, the Red Sea was our Garden of Eden. A small population of semi-aquatic proto-Homo survived there throughout the Pliocene and then diversified and expanded globally in the Pleistocene.

Francesca

-----Original Message-----
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:30 PM
To: fceska_gr via groups.io <f-ceska@...>; AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean

Hi Francesca, yes, sorry, I'm sometimes a bit slow-minded... (age?).

I'd think the Mesop.Seaway closure c 15 Ma split hominids/pongids (W/E):
hominids lived in coastal forests all long the whole Med-Red Sea + islands (+ inland along rivers-lakes...):
no wonder some of them (e.g. Trachilos) had remarkably humanlike feet, but that doesn't mean they were very close relatives of our ancestors?

Most hominids (Europe, Anatolia...) died out: coolings, floods, desiccations (MSC), climate...?
Only HPG ancestors survived. Not unlikely, they lived near Africa: IMO
- Plio-Pleist.Gorilla-Praeanthr.(+Ardip.?) in the E.Afr.Rift (opening c
8 Ma?),
- Pan-Australopith.s.s. in Transvaal etc.,
- Homo in S.Asia: Java etc.
IOW, HPG seems to have come from the Red Sea.
If the Zanclean flood opened the Red Sea to the Gulf (likely IYO?), that paved the way for Pan & Homo I'd think.
Were the coastal forms along the Ind.Ocean (Afr.Pan + S.Asia Homo?) more erectus-like? & the inland forms (e.g. habilis??) more africanus-like?

Thanks a lot --marc


------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: f-ceska@...
Aan: AAT@groups.io
Verzonden: maandag 4 april 2022 10:15
Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean

Hi Marc,

Thanks. I've read this paper.

MV: "I wonder: what was the effect of the Zanclean flood in the Red Sea?"

As you know, I've written about this several times already (in my still draft-form paper and book, which you've read). Evidence I've found suggests that the Zanclean flood broke the land bridge between Africa and Eurasia 5.33 Ma and drastically raised water levels in the Red Sea, flooding down as far as Afar and probably creating the Danakil islands, where already upright proto-gorilla Ardipithecus kaddaba may have been stranded, which may have eventually led to aquarboreal Ardipithecus ramidus by 4.4 Ma and the more bipedal wading Australopithecus afarensis by 3.9 Ma.

5.3 Ma totally fits the best molecular estimates for the split between Pan and Homo, and aligns with the fossil evidence, so it forms the basis of my hypothesis (Zanclean Flood hypothesis) about what caused the split and how two totally different, but genetically very similar, lineages emerged during the Pliocene in Pan & Homo.

Francesca

-----Original Message-----
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 11:03 PM
To: aat@groups.io
Subject: [AAT] The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean

The Zanclean megaflood of the Mediterranean – Searching for independent evidence Daniel Garcia-Castellanosa cs 2020 doi
org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.103061
Earth-Sci Rev 201, 103061

~6 Ma, the Med.Sea underwent
- a period of isolation from the ocean &
- widespread salt deposition (Messinian Salinity Crisis MSC), allegedly leading to a km-scale level draw-down by evaporation.
One of the competing scenarios proposed for the termination of the MSC
5.3 Ma consists of a mega-flood, refilling the Med through the Strait of Gibraltar: the Zanclean flood.
The main evidence is a nearly 390 km-long & several 100 m-erosion channel from the Gulf of Cádiz (Atl.Ocean) to the Algerian Basin (W-Med), this implies the excavation of c 1000 km3 of Miocene sediment & bedrock.

Based on the understanding obtained from Pleistocene onshore mega-flooding events, and using ad-hoc hydrodynamic modeling, here we explore 2 predictions of the Zanclean outburst flood hypothesis:
1) the fm of similar erosion features at sills communicating sub-basins within the Med, specifically at the Sicily Sill,
2) the accumulation of the eroded materials as mega-flood deposits in areas of low flow energy.

Recent data show a 6-km-wide amphitheater-shaped canyon, preserved at the Malta Escarpment, that may represent the erosional expression of the Zanclean flood after filling the W-Med, and spilling into the E-Basin.
-- Next to that canyon, a ~1600 km3 accumulation of chaotic, seismically transparent sediment has been found in the Ionian Sea, compatible in age & facies with mega-flood deposits.
-- Another candidate mega-flood deposit has been identified in the Alborán Sea: elongated sedimentary bodies that parallel the flooding channel, and are seismically characterized by chaotic & discontinuous stratified reflections, we interpret these as equivalent to gravel & boulder mega-bars, described in terrestrial mega-flood settings.

Numerical model predictions show:
sand deposits found at the Mio-/Pliocene-boundary in ODP sites 974 &
975 (S.Balearic & Tyrrhenian seas) are consistent with suspension transport from the Strait of Gibraltar during a flooding event at a peak water discharge of ~108 m3/s.

______

I wonder: what was the effect of the Zanclean flood in the Red Sea?


Re: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

Marc Verhaegen
 

Dear Michel,
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I totally agree and your talk was really interesting. I believe Simon Bearder also questioned the term and suggested “amphibious ape”. The term “aquatic ape” has become anathema to many in the scientific community. It’s become synonymous with pseudo-science and mermaid theories. It’s such a shame because we all want to uphold Elaine’s legacy. I’m writing a book and still don’t know what to call it because as soon as aquatic is mentioned in the title, most people will walk away. I was using “How We Became Human” but now have reverted to “Semi Aquatic (Human) Ancestors” but I still don’t know. It may change many times before I’m finished! I do feel as if the tide is beginning to turn, so to speak, and there is an awakening interest in all “waterside theories of human evolution” although scientists are focusing more on upper Palaeolithic Homo at the moment. Best wishes, Francesca


Thanks, Francesca. I've written a 2nd book (mostly an update of my 1st book "In den beginne was het water" - title after the original Bible translation in Dutch "In den beginne was het woord" (modern Dutch would be "In 't begin was er het woord" or so),
but I think to sell I'd had better used another title, therefore we're thinking now of simply using "De evolutie van de mens" for my 2nd book (which probably will be published within a few months),
perhaps with subtitle(s) "Waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken" and/or "Medische en biologische Inzichten en recente fossiele vondsten".
In any case, as Michel says, I'd avoid using "aquatic ape" (in Dutch "wateraap" is usu.used, but "aap" = anthropoid/simian, and "mensaap" = ape) although it isn't wrong IMO. --marc

______


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Michel OdentSent: Monday, April 11, 2022 4:18 PMTo: AAT@...: algiskuliukas Subject: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)


Dear Francesca,
Thank you for your comments. My point of departure was a question: Why do the media ignore the term “aquatic ape”, even when publishing biographies of Elaine? Are there more mediatic terms? I just provided reasons to consider the issue of “marketing” (how to sell …?).
Michel

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:17 PM fceska_gr via groups.io <f-ceska@...> wrote:

Yes, it's a confusing business. That's why I shared a link to my Aquatic Ancestors website where I write about the controversy surrounding the name Aquatic Ape Theory and the various different manifestations of the same idea. I prefer (Semi)-Aquatic Human Ancestor Theory, because I think that covers everything. www.aquatic-human-ancestor.org Personally I think it's a muddle because almost all of it applies at different times. There was no single immersion, but many, going back to at least 25 Ma. We tend to forget that the world was a much more humid place in the Miocene jungles of Africa and Eurasia. There was much more water everywhere than we have ever known. In the early-mid Miocene our first ape ancestors were probably aquarboreal as Marc says, becoming orthograde and potentially posturally bipedal from regular wading in flooded forests, which were a mixture of both marine and fresh water (as are the East African lakes). In the middle-late Miocene, they probably became more terrestrially bipedal, especially after the Vallesian when forests gave way to grasslands and river basins in Europe. By the late Miocene / MSC, there were already fully bipedal hominids (hominines?) on Crete, which suggests they had already started adapting to coastal zones. Going by my own working hypothesis:5.3 Ma During the mass migration of fauna away from the drying Mediterranean basin towards Africa, the Zanclean Megaflood caused the split between Homo and Pan, with Pan occupying the African Red Sea coast and eventually following the rift down to South Africa (Australopithecus africanus, etc.), while Homo was stranded on the Arabian coast of the Red Sea during the Pliocene. No trees and only desert behind them, no way back and no way forward, so this would have been our most aquatic phase and I think most of Elaine's aquatic "differences" occurred during this period (5.3 - 2.6 Ma). Temperatures were 6 degrees or so hotter, sea-levels were 30m higher. There'd be nothing to do but stay in the water all day, and probably why we retain hair on our heads. Too many dangers and too hot to remain on land without cover. Shallow diving and shellfish consumption. After 2.6 Ma, (early Pleistocene when sea levels fell) there was a radiation of aquatically transformed Homo from the Red Sea: north, east, south and west so that evidence of Homo exists from China 2.1 Ma and South Africa 2.04 Ma, Pakistan & Java 1.9 Ma, Georgia 1.85 Ma, etc. But: fur loss is indicated to stem from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, so it's likely the LCA was already partially furless at least and probably bipedal, as well as being able to use stone tools. All great apes can and do walk bipedally, use or fashion stone tools, lack underfur, can suffer from obesity, etc. Chimps have hymens, go through a naked stage in utero where they have flat faces, adducted halluces and look more human than ape-like. Their fur grows in the last month of pregnancy while we are getting covered in greasy cheese (vernix!) Bonobos often have webbed toes and bipedal leg muscles. All this suggests a semi-aquatic ancestor of all great apes, but especially for the LCA, although finally a more prolonged and intense aquatic period for Homo. This means that chimps regrew their fur and reverted to knuckle-walking much later in their evolution, while we retained the more ancestral condition and then increased the differences during our most aquatic phase. There have also been calls among scientists to reclassify our species as Pan sapiens, and by others to classify Pan as Homo, due to the genetic closeness of our two lineages, so maybe Michel wasn't that far off in referring to us as marine chimpanzees!Best wishes,Francesca -----Original Message-----From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc VerhaegenSent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:36 PMTo: algiskuliukas <algis@...>Cc: AAT@...: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)Hi Algis,yes, I agree it's best not to use the word "chimpanzee": chimps also have changed drastically since the H/P LCA (c 5 Ma?).We don't know how aquatic this LCA was, I'd think it was aquarboreal (in mangrove forests?): climbing, wading, swimming probably, but diving?We were no dolphins, of course, but no doubt H.erectus (POS etc.) & our ancestors (at least until mid-Pleistocene?) were predom.slow+shallow shellfish-divers.Why not use Stephen Munro's term "coastal dispersal" theory or hypothesis (of Pleistocene/archaic Homo)?And thank you, Algis, for your WHAT talks!Best --marc_______ ------ Origineel bericht ------ Van: algis@... Aan: m_verhaegen@...: AAT@groups.io Verzonden: maandag 11 april 2022 13:05 Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time) Thanks MarcYes, Michel gave a lovely talk. Amazing. And to remember, he is 92!! How wonderful to witness him and Michael Crawford conversing too. (There's hope for us all!)I do not dispute his term "marine" (as opposed to merely "aquatic") for the reasons you point out , of course. However I think marine implies something more aquatic than we ever were, something like a dolphin. I therefore prefer "coastal" or your "littoral" for later Homo, as this makes it clear that were always somewhat terrestrial too.I must say, I don't like the use of the word "chimpanzee" in any label. We are most certainly not chimpanzees and, as Elaine's work showed, it's the differences between us and chimps that are most interesting and give most evidence for a more aquatic past. If the French (and Polish) do not have a word for "ape" that is hardly a reason to relabel the whole idea.Similarly, with "concept", I understand that lay people might not be able to distinguish a theory from an hypothesis but I think if we want this to be taken seriously by scientists we should phrase it as an hypothesis or (as I prefer) a series of hypotheses (plural).So, although I loved his talk and he made some very good points, I remain unmoved from the feeling that Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution remain the best all-round umbrella term, under which any individual idea can be expressed and remain completely compatible with it.For me, personally, I still think the label "River Apes ... Coastal People" ticks all the boxes, as I've thought now for 24 years.Anyway, thanks as always, for your great work, your input and support.Best wishesAlgis KuliukasOn Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:26 AM Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>wrote:Hi all, Beautiful lecture from a 92-year old: he'd call the aquatic apetheory: The marine chimpanzee concept. Michel made it clear IMO that until recently we must have been "marine" (rather than simply"aquatic"): -vernix caseosa, -huge brain, -iodine needs. When the Red Sea opened to the Gulf (5 Ma?) -P ------ Origineel bericht ------ Van: m_verhaegen@... Aan: AAT@groups.io Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2022 12:23 Onderwerp: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time) ------ Origineel bericht ------ Van: algis.kuliukas@... Aan: algis.kuliukas@... Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2022 05:24Onderwerp: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time) Dear One and All I am actually quite nervous with excitement about sending this invite to you. I still can't quite believe I'm doing it. I am especially privileged to invite you to the 6th WHAT (Waterside Hypotheses/Aquatic Theory) Talk as the guest speaker this month is the world renowned French obstetrician, Michel Odent, perhaps most famous for his advancement of the use of birthing tubs in child birth, although I know he'd rather be recognised for his pioneering work promoting early, post-partum, skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby. More about Michel below but first, some global zoom meeting "admin". The talk is this Sunday (the day after tomorrow). Please be careful to check the start time for you locally. It is difficult to choose a start time that suits everyone in the world but around mid-day in Europe seems to work quite well. For Michel in France, the talk will start at 1pm in the afternoon. So, for anyone tuning in in the UK, it'll be noon. Here, in Western Australia it will be 8pm. In the Eastern Australian States it'll be 10pm and in the Eastern seaboard in the USA it'll be 7am in the morning (still Sunday though.) Use this global time map to help you, but please check, as each country might have local daylight-saving procedures going on. The talk will be around 40 minutes or so, after which there will be an opportunity for questions and discussions. I am using Zoom's waiting room feature this time so please be patient when you follow the link as I have no idea how many will be attending. As always, please make sure you're on mute during the talk and, as always, it will be recorded and posted to our YouTube channel and onto the web site. Please feel free to share this email invite with anyone you think might be interested in why we are so different, physically, from the chimpanzee. Also, if you haven't already done so, please view the previous five talks by following the links below... WHAT Talks You Tube Channel or WHAT Talks Web site. Remember, you can go to whattalks.com from any browser, just by typing "whattalks.com" directly into the address line. (No need to search Google.) A link to the meeting will be placed on the web site home page on the day of the talk too, in case you lose this email somehow. So... see you on Sunday!! All the best Algis Kuliukas Now... Michel Odent Biographical Sketch Michel Odent, MD, has been in charge of the surgical unit and the maternity unit at the Pithiviers (France) state hospital (1962-1985). During many years he has been the only doctor in charge of about 1000 births a year. Michel is most proud that he wrote the first article about the initiation of lactation during the hour following birth (1977). Most significant here is that he was the author of the first article in the medical literature about the use of birthing pools (Lancet 1983). Michael also wrote the first article applying the ‘Gate Control Theory of Pain’ to obstetrics (1975). He coined the term “hormone of love” when mentioning oxytocin. He created the Primal Health Research database (www.primalhealthresearch.com). He has been a member of the Professional Advisory Board of La Leche League International for about 40 years. Michel Odent is Visiting Professor at the Odessa National Medical University and Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Brasilia. Talk Outline "Selling the Marine Chimpanzee Concept" Several trustable persons - including Elaine Morgan – have suggested that the term “aquatic ape” is hardly marketable. Who can help us to renew our vocabulary? We’ll follow the advice of Stephen Munro, who expressed his point of view during a previous “WHAT talk” session. He emphasized that we should not waste time with experts, and offered a list of valuable potential advisers. MEETING LINK Algis Kuliukas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: WHAT Talk #06 - Michel Odent Time: Apr 10, 2022 07:30 PM Perth Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88649520649?pwd=bWNrRVFrQXFzQi9paGhhd3czOWVNUT09 Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649 Passcode: 326765 One tap mobile +12532158782,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (Tacoma) +16699006833,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (San Jose) Dial by your location +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 929 436 2866 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649 Passcode: 326765 Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kenT1wuaZd -------------------------------------- Dr Algis Kuliukas Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology-- Geriausi linkėjimai / Best regardsAlgis Kuliukas


Re: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

Michel Odent
 

A transcript of my WhatTalks presentation has been written from the U Tube recording. Michel


SELLING THE MARINE CHIMPANZEE CONCEPT

Thank you, Algis, for this comment about power points. People my age (I am 92) don’t like power points. They need to look at the faces of people, to establish eye to eye contact without being distracted by pictures. This is how I’ll talk with you today.

As Algis said, our point of departure is the term “aquatic ape theory”. We’ll first wonder how marketable and mediatic this term can be. This is not a new question. About 30 years ago, at a seminar at San Rafael, in California, the clever editor of “Mind/Body bulletin”, as if surprised, asked Elaine Morgan why she had published a book titled “The Aquatic Ape” after publishing “The Descent of Woman”. Elaine immediately, without thinking, replied: “Scientists did not like The Descent of Woman because it was a best seller. This is why the following book was titled “The Aquatic Ape”. This was a funny way to say: “I assume that this title will not be immediately attractive”. It was a clever answer, 30 years ago. Since that time, we can observe that the media never use the term “aquatic ape”, even when they publish biographies of Elaine. Recently, when a statue of Elaine was unveiled, her biography appeared in many journals, such as The Guardian. The term “aquatic ape” never appeared. Journalists don’t forget, on the other hand, to mention that when Elaine appeared for the first time at Oxford University people thought she was a cleaning lady. 

There are therefore good reasons to wonder if the term “Aquatic ape” is marketable. Can it become better known and popular? Should we replace it?

Personally, I always try to avoid this term. Algis mentioned the title of one of my books: The birth of Homo, the marine chimpanzee. I suggest that we contrast “Aquatic Ape Theory” and “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”. To suggest a solution to this issue, I suggest that we follow the advice given by Stephen Munro in the framework of Whats Talk. He started by saying: don’t lose time by listening to experts. He was probably suggesting that we never know about the ulterior motives of experts… and he gave a list of people we should communicate with when we need to find a solution to a difficult issue. Children were at the top of the list.

I followed the advice of Stephen Munro and initiated a conversation with my friend Lughan, a clever 12-year-old boy. I started with a question: for your birthday, I am planning to give you a book as a present. You must choose between two titles: one title would be “we are aquatic apes” and the other one “we are marine chimpanzees”. Within two seconds Lughan had enthusiastically replied: we are chimpanzees! I am fascinated by the work of Jane Goodall! Of course, we belong to the family of chimpanzees! etc. I immediately understood his point of view. There are similarities between the way of thinking of children and nonagenarians.

After a series of conversations with my friend Lughan, I gradually found rational ways to support his point of view. Taking into account what I understood as a medical practitioner, I found reasons to clarify what we are currently learning about human nature. There are reasons to contrast the term “aquatic” with the term “marine”, the term “ape” with the term “chimpanzee” and the term “theory” with the term “concept” .

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let us start with marine versus aquatic. I’ll reply as a doctor known for his practice of obstetrics. We’ll start with the mysterious issue of vernix caseosa. Until the 21st century, in the medical literature, there was no interest in vernix caseosa. In textbooks, it was just mentioned that when babies are born at term, their skin is covered with a kind of cream “like cheese” (caseosa). It was also mentioned that only human babies were born with their skin covered by this cream. When I was a medical student called “externe” in the obstetrical department of a Paris hospital’ (in 1953) the vernix was usually wiped away. It was denied any function’.

As many of you know, the turning point took place during the 21st century, in 2005. It was not induced by the result of a study published in an academic journal. It was a programme presented by David Attenborough on BBC radio 4. The title of the programme was “The scars of evolution”. This how we learned that, according to Don Bowen, a marine biologist from Nova Scotia, seals are also born with their skin covered with vernix.

We must underline that before that time there had been missed opportunities to wonder if there are sea mammals born with their skin covered with vernix.  

In 1979 and 1981, in West Australia, there have been studies evaluating the amounts of squalene in the amniotic fluid as a way to detect post mature foetuses. Let us recall that squalene is an oily substance abundant among marine living creatures (the root of word squalene is squalus, which means shark in latin). However, nobody thought, at that time, to compare human newborn babies and the new born babies of sea mammals. There was another missed opportunity in 2000. A team of American dermatologists wanted to develop a protective cream for premature babies. They tried to imitate vernix caseosa. They were interested in “corneocytes” that work like sponges and are protective in case of immersion in hypertonic water. However, they did not consider the case of sea mammals. In 2008 there was a study of the content of vernix caseosa focusing on branched chain fatty acids. They are special saturated fatty acids with a methyl radical (CH3) attached to one or several carbon atoms of the molecule. Because the authors of this study had not heard about the non-published observations about seals, they could not think of comparing with the vernix caseosa of sea mammals.

Finally, there was a last turning point in 2018. A team in California studied the particular case of sea lions. The authors were not aware of the observations by Don Bowen about seals. Foetuses of sea lions also have their skin covered with human-like vernix. At the end of pregnancy, particles of vernix are detached from the skin and they enrich the amniotic fluid. This is how foetuses of sea lions and humans swallow molecules of branched chain fatty acids that will play an important role in the way the gut flora is established. It would be important to study in depth the similarities between humans and sea mammals in terms of development of the gut flora.   

There are many other reasons to contrast the terms aquatic and marine. One of them is the need in iodine. Most human beings - if they don’t have easy access to the sea food chain, - cannot consume a sufficient amount of iodine. It is the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, at such a point that many governments have established regulations so that table salt is enriched with iodine. It is a serious issue among pregnant and lactating women, when the need in iodine is multiplied by about 1.5.

We know why it is serious. Homo is characterised by a huge brain. The development and the functions of the brain are highly dependent on thyroid hormones. Iodine is necessary for their synthesis. The American Thyroid Association (ATA) claims that pregnant women should take a daily iodine supplement of 150 μg. According to a British study, when pregnant women take such a supplement, the average IQ of their children is multiplied by 1.22. So, when we consider the most common nutritional deficiency among modern humans, we feel obliged to prefer the term “marine” to the term “aquatic”.

The brain is a fatty organ. This implies that it has specific needs in term of lipids. It has, in particular, specific needs in DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). DHA is a molecule of omega 3 fatty acid as long and as desaturated as possible (22 carbons and 6 double bonds). The point is that the human enzymatic system is not very effective to synthesize DHA, which is preformed and abundant in the sea food chain only. If human beings don’t have access to sea food their enzymatic system (desaturase and elongase) must transform the parent molecule of the omega 3 family (only 28 carbons and 3 double bonds) which is provided by the land food chain. The point is that this enzymatic system is not very effective among humans. This is one of the most mysterious aspects of human nature: the highly developed brain needs the fatty acid DHA, but the human enzymatic system is not very effective at synthetising this molecule, which is preformed in the sea food chain. Enzymes need the help catalysts, mostly minerals provided by the land food chain. The point is that this metabolic pathway is fragile. It can be weakened by emotional states associated with the release of corticosteroids, such as being sad or depressed, and by potential inhibitory factors such as the consumption of pure sugar, alcohol, trans fatty acids, and man-made food in general. Ideally, we probably need to consume fatty acids provided by the sea food chain.

A reference to our enzymatic system is providing another reason to develop the concept of “marine”. There are very aquatic mammals that do not have access to a marine environment. This is the case, for example, of water voles, otters, rhinoceros, elephants and hippopotamus. We don’t have many common points with them. When we claim that we are special compared with the other mammals, we find reasons to emphasize our common points with sea mammals rather than aquatic mammals in general. We have reasons to replace “aquatic” by “marine”.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“Ape” is the second term we have to discuss. Do we have reasons to replace the term “ape” by the term “chimpanzee”? Once more, I required the point of view of my friend Lughan. I asked him: “Do you prefer to say that we are apes or that we are chimpanzees?”. He immediately replied: “Oh, chimpanzees! We look like chimpanzees! We are friends with chimpanzees! Apes … I don’t know exactly what it means!” As a matter of fact, it is difficult to translate “ape”. In the age of globalisation, we must realise that “ape” cannot be translated into many languages. It cannot be translated into French, my mother tongue. We can translate “primate”, “monkey”, “chimpanzee”, but not “ape”. This might be the first reason to prefer “chimpanzee”.

Another reason is to consider the chimpanzee-homo split. We are cousins. We probably separated at a precise time. This is accepted by many scientists today. I don’t want to discuss this issue. I just explained to Lughan that according to some experts we separated 4 million years ago, or 5 according to others, or 6, etc. He was not interested in that at all. He wanted to know where the split took place.  I could only say that it probably happened where the populations of chimpanzees were abundant. The chimpanzees where living mostly in West Africa, around the Equator, in places that are now called Gabon, Cameroun Equatorial Guinea, and so on. So, we were wondering if there are places where both fossils of chimpanzees and human beings have been found. The answer was “no” because one cannot find fossils unless the geological and climatic conditions are perfect. In the place where the split probably took place, there are heavy equatorial rains and inadequate geological conditions, so that it is impossible to find relevant fossils. One effect of the split probably was that our ancestors had acquired the capacity to develop a huge brain. To satisfy the nutritional needs of such a potentially big brain, they probably started to adapt to coastal areas, The point is that there have been such spectacular fluctuations of sea levels during the last millions of years that we’ll probably never find fossils of human beings originally adapted to the coast. Finally, Lughan and I had to confess that we have a lot to learn.

From our conversations we had realised that we must focus on what we don’t know. How can we know more? There are emerging disciplines that can help us in the future. This is the case of virology. There are mysterious questions about the colonisation of our genes by viruses. For example, we may wonder why a virus called CERV2 has colonised the genes of chimpanzees, but not the genes of humans. It means that the contamination took place after the split. It also means that after the split Homo probably evolved in isolated places. We cannot say more.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

There is another term we have to consider. I asked my friend: What do you think of the word “theory”? He was not interested in the topic, but he said that theory is about ideas. Theories come and go … and come back. What is purely theoretical is not really serious. Finally, he would prefer the phrase “The marine chimpanzee concept”. From his point of view, “concept” is related to the way of thinking. Finally, when I consider what I learned from my conversations with a 12-year-old boy, I find reasons to replace the phrase “Aquatic Ape Theory” by “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”.

I’ll finish by emphasising that today, whatever the topic, we are in unprecedented situations. What can we do? We need to phrase appropriate questions.

 I’ll show you the cover of a book, published not long time ago. You don’t need to read this book. Just look at the cover. We are in the age of question marks.      


On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:23 AM Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...> wrote:






------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: algis.kuliukas@...
Aan: algis.kuliukas@...
Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2022 05:24
Onderwerp: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

Dear One and All

I am actually quite nervous with excitement about sending this invite to you. I still can't quite believe I'm doing it.

I am especially privileged to invite you to the 6th WHAT (Waterside Hypotheses/Aquatic Theory) Talk as the guest speaker this month is the world renowned French obstetrician, Michel Odent, perhaps most famous for his advancement of the use of birthing tubs in child birth, although I know he'd rather be recognised for his pioneering work promoting early, post-partum, skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby.



More about Michel below but first, some global zoom meeting "admin".

The talk is this Sunday (the day after tomorrow). Please be careful to check the start time for you locally. It is difficult to choose a start time that suits everyone in the world but around mid-day in Europe seems to work quite well. For Michel in France, the talk will start at 1pm in the afternoon. So, for anyone tuning in in the UK, it'll be noon. Here, in Western Australia it will be 8pm. In the Eastern Australian States it'll be 10pm and in the Eastern seaboard in the USA it'll be 7am in the morning (still Sunday though.)

Use this global time map to help you, but please check, as each country might have local daylight-saving procedures going on.


The talk will be around 40 minutes or so, after which there will be an opportunity for questions and discussions. I am using Zoom's waiting room feature this time so please be patient when you follow the link as I have no idea how many will be attending. As always, please make sure you're on mute during the talk and, as always, it will be recorded and posted to our YouTube channel and onto the web site.

Please feel free to share this email invite with anyone you think might be interested in why we are so different, physically, from the chimpanzee.

Also, if you haven't already done so, please view the previous five talks by following the links below...


or


Remember, you can go to whattalks.com from any browser, just by typing "whattalks.com" directly into the address line. (No need to search Google.)

A link to the meeting will be placed on the web site home page on the day of the talk too, in case you lose this email somehow.

So... see you on Sunday!!

All the best

Algis Kuliukas

Now...

Michel Odent

Biographical Sketch

Michel Odent, MD, has been in charge of the surgical unit and the maternity unit at the Pithiviers (France) state hospital (1962-1985). During many years he has been the only doctor in charge of about 1000 births a year.


Michel is most proud that he wrote the first article about the initiation of lactation during the hour following birth (1977).
Most significant here is that he was the author of the first article in the medical literature about the use of birthing pools (Lancet 1983). Michael also wrote the first article applying the ‘Gate Control Theory of Pain’ to obstetrics (1975). He coined the term “hormone of love” when mentioning oxytocin. He created the Primal Health Research database (www.primalhealthresearch.com). He has been a member of the Professional Advisory Board of La Leche League International for about 40 years.

Michel Odent is Visiting Professor at the Odessa National Medical University and Doctor Honoris Causa of the University of Brasilia.


Talk Outline
"Selling the Marine Chimpanzee Concept"
Several trustable persons - including Elaine Morgan – have suggested that the term “aquatic ape” is hardly marketable. Who can help us to renew our vocabulary? We’ll follow the advice of Stephen Munro, who expressed his point of view during a previous “WHAT talk” session. He emphasized that we should not waste time with experts, and offered a list of valuable potential advisers.


MEETING LINK

Algis Kuliukas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: WHAT Talk #06 - Michel Odent
Time: Apr 10, 2022 07:30 PM Perth

Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649
Passcode: 326765
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (Tacoma)
+16699006833,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 929 436 2866 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649
Passcode: 326765
Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kenT1wuaZd


--------------------------------------
Dr Algis Kuliukas
Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology




shellfish as a food resource in the tropical island Asia-Pacific region

Marc Verhaegen
 

Molluscs in a world of islands:
the use of shellfish as a food resource in the tropical island Asia-Pacific region
Katherine Szabó cs 2011 Quat.Internat.239:8-18
doi 10.1016/j.quaint.2011.02.033

The vast Asia-Pacific region (the islands of Indonesia & Borneo in the W, Melanesia, Micronesia & W.Polynesia in the E) is a panorama of water & islands.
Encompassing the “coral triangle”, this region is the most speciose of the global marine bio-geographic provinces: a mosaic of high-biomass habitats:
mangrove swamps & coral reefs, rocky shores, sea-grass meadows & beaches.

The importance of molluscs across this region can hardly be overestimated:
- a consistent source of food,
- providing raw materials for artefacts.
The western parts of this region have Pleistocene human occupation records,
some zones of Indonesia yield non-Hs hominin remains: H.erectus & floresiensis.
For most of the tropical Pacific Islands, the archaeological record commences at c 3.5 - 1 ka.
Rather than conducting an exhaustive survey of knowledge of the human use of molluscs over this vast span of space & time, the focus here is central issues re. the use of molluscan resources for food.

4 major issues are discussed:
1) the evidence for shellfish collection by non-Hs hominins,
2) the character of early Hs shellfish-gathering cf. discussions of coastal adaptations,
3) what was the effect on shell-gathering practices as seas rose in the Holocene?
4) where do shellfish fit into the notions of early subsistence in Oceanic Micronesia & Melanesia-W.Polynesia?

...

The use of molluscs as a food resource is well attested for early Hs & Hn (e.g. Stiner 1994, Stringer cs 2008), but is the focus of some debate re. other spp of hominin.
Despite a long & often controversial history of scholarship arguing for the importance of aquatic resources in hominid development & evolution (e.g. Sauer 1962, Morgan 1982, Broadhurst cs 1998), convincing archaeological evidence is rather sparse.
Erlandson (2001) posits: much important evidence may have been overlooked, largely due to analytical or interpretational bias & a lack of archaeological visibility (see also Bailey 2004, Stewart 2010).
Erlandson (2010) specifically mentions the island Asia-Pacific region with reference to both sea-crossings by H.floresiensis & early Hs maritime adaptations.
Taking this context as a startingpoint, this paper investigates whether there is reliable evidence forthe exploitation of shellfish by pre-Hs hominins in Pleistocene Island-SE.Asia.
...
to investigate the nature of aquatic environments in the area around the pivotal Trinil fossil site, Joordens cs (2009) re-analysed fishbones & molluscan shell collected during the original excavations by Dubois (1907, 1908) & Selenka (1911).
As well as standard zoo-archaeological analysis, Sr*87/86 analysis ofa samplecof shells, fish-bones & stingray spines allowed the researchers to pinpoint any salt-water incursions into the general aquatic system.
The results of analysis suggested:
aquatic environments in the Trinil area were “comparable to that of the modern coastal tropical freshwater swamp forest biotope” (Joordens cs 2009:665).
Rather than contradicting earlier interpretations of Trinil He occupying a savannah-dominated landscape (e.g. De Vos 1982), Joordens cs (2009:665) suggest:
such grasslands were indeed present, although regularly inundated
= a conclusion also recently forwarded for the important Sangiran fossil-bearing area in Java (Bettis cs 2008).
Joordens cs (2009) further demonstrate:
aquatic habitats hosting a variety of fresh-, brackish-water & mud-flat mollusc spp & fish (incl. catfish & stingrays) were locally available for exploitation by hominins at Trinil.
Whether hominins were indeed exploiting these resources requires further archaeological study, and would be greatly assisted by the discovery of in-situ midden deposits ass.x He.
Certainly, the recovery of small amounts of fishbone from Ngebung in the Sangiran area warrants thoughtful consideration of the role & nature of aquatic resource use.
...
The record of Hs in ISEA & the W-Pacific sees evidence of mollusc exploitation expand rapidly from c 40 ka.
This said, the nature of early human mollusc exploitation is not even across the region, in either extent or nature.
It has on occasion been mooted that adaptations to littoral (Sauer 1962) or estuarine (Bulbeck 2007) environments facilitated rapid Hs dispersals across Asia-W.Pacific region,
but a closer look at the variety of aquatic resource use across this range complicates any all-embracing interpretation.
Pleistocene shell-middens exhibit a focus on 2 distinct zones of aquatic adaptation & resource use:
1) littoral marine environments,
2) fresh-water environments, some-times with brackish-water incursions at times of higher sea-levels.
It is not at all clear that the skills required for effective subsistence in one zone can be easily adapted to another as is often tacitly presupposed (e.g. Verhaegen cs 2007).
...


Re: WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

fceska_gr
 

Dear Michel,

 

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I totally agree and your talk was really interesting. I believe Simon Bearder also questioned the term and suggested “amphibious ape”. The term “aquatic ape” has become anathema to many in the scientific community. It’s become synonymous with pseudo-science and mermaid theories. It’s such a shame because we all want to uphold Elaine’s legacy.  I’m writing a book and still don’t know what to call it because as soon as aquatic is mentioned in the title, most people will walk away. I was using “How We Became Human” but now have reverted to “Semi Aquatic (Human) Ancestors” but I still don’t know. It may change many times before I’m finished! I do feel as if the tide is beginning to turn, so to speak, and there is an awakening interest in all “waterside theories of human evolution” although scientists are focusing more on upper Palaeolithic Homo at the moment.

 

Best wishes,

Francesca

 

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Michel Odent
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 4:18 PM
To: AAT@groups.io
Cc: algiskuliukas <algis@...>
Subject: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

 

Dear Francesca,

Thank you for your comments. My point of departure was a question: Why do the media ignore the term “aquatic ape”, even when publishing biographies of Elaine? Are there more mediatic terms? I just provided reasons to consider the issue of “marketing” (how to sell …?).

Michel

 

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:17 PM fceska_gr via groups.io <f-ceska=odysseysailing.gr@groups.io> wrote:

Yes, it's a confusing business. That's why I shared a link to my Aquatic Ancestors website where I write about the controversy surrounding the name Aquatic Ape Theory and the various different manifestations of the same idea. I prefer (Semi)-Aquatic Human Ancestor Theory, because I think that covers everything.
www.aquatic-human-ancestor.org

Personally I think it's a muddle because almost all of it applies at different times. There was no single immersion, but many, going back to at least 25 Ma. We tend to forget that the world was a much more humid place in the Miocene jungles of Africa and Eurasia. There was much more water everywhere than we have ever known.

In the early-mid Miocene our first ape ancestors were probably aquarboreal as Marc says, becoming orthograde and potentially posturally bipedal from regular wading in flooded forests, which were a mixture of both marine and fresh water (as are the East African lakes).
In the middle-late Miocene, they probably became more terrestrially bipedal, especially after the Vallesian when forests gave way to grasslands and river basins in Europe.
By the late Miocene / MSC, there were already fully bipedal hominids (hominines?) on Crete, which suggests they had already started adapting to coastal zones.

Going by my own working hypothesis:
5.3 Ma During the mass migration of fauna away from the drying Mediterranean basin towards Africa, the Zanclean Megaflood caused the split between Homo and Pan, with Pan occupying the African Red Sea coast and eventually following the rift down to South Africa (Australopithecus africanus, etc.), while Homo was stranded on the Arabian coast of the Red Sea during the Pliocene. No trees and only desert behind them, no way back and no way forward, so this would have been our most aquatic phase and I think most of Elaine's aquatic "differences" occurred during this period (5.3 - 2.6 Ma). Temperatures were 6 degrees or so hotter, sea-levels were 30m higher. There'd be nothing to do but stay in the water all day, and probably why we retain hair on our heads. Too many dangers and too hot to remain on land without cover. Shallow diving and shellfish consumption.

After 2.6 Ma, (early Pleistocene when sea levels fell) there was a radiation of aquatically transformed Homo from the Red Sea: north, east, south and west so that evidence of Homo exists from China 2.1 Ma and South Africa 2.04 Ma, Pakistan & Java 1.9 Ma, Georgia 1.85 Ma, etc.

But: fur loss is indicated to stem from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, so it's likely the LCA was already partially furless at least and probably bipedal, as well as being able to use stone tools. All great apes can and do walk bipedally, use or fashion stone tools, lack underfur, can suffer from obesity, etc. Chimps have hymens, go through a naked stage in utero where they have flat faces, adducted halluces and look more human than ape-like. Their fur grows in the last month of pregnancy while we are getting covered in greasy cheese (vernix!) Bonobos often have webbed toes and bipedal leg muscles. All this suggests a semi-aquatic ancestor of all great apes, but especially for the LCA, although finally a more prolonged and intense aquatic period for Homo. This means that chimps regrew their fur and reverted to knuckle-walking much later in their evolution, while we retained the more ancestral condition and then increased the differences during our most aquatic phase.

There have also been calls among scientists to reclassify our species as Pan sapiens, and by others to classify Pan as Homo, due to the genetic closeness of our two lineages, so maybe Michel wasn't that far off in referring to us as marine chimpanzees!

Best wishes,

Francesca


-----Original Message-----
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> On Behalf Of Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 2:36 PM
To: algiskuliukas <algis@...>
Cc: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

Hi Algis,
yes, I agree it's best not to use the word "chimpanzee": chimps also have changed drastically since the H/P LCA (c 5 Ma?).
We don't know how aquatic this LCA was, I'd think it was aquarboreal (in mangrove forests?): climbing, wading, swimming probably, but diving?
We were no dolphins, of course, but no doubt H.erectus (POS etc.) & our ancestors (at least until mid-Pleistocene?) were predom.slow+shallow shellfish-divers.
Why not use Stephen Munro's term "coastal dispersal" theory or hypothesis (of Pleistocene/archaic Homo)?

And thank you, Algis, for your WHAT talks!
Best  --marc

_______


    ------ Origineel bericht ------
    Van: algis@...
    Aan: m_verhaegen@...
Cc: AAT@groups.io
    Verzonden: maandag 11 april 2022 13:05
    Onderwerp: Re: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West Australian Time)

         Thanks Marc
Yes, Michel gave a lovely talk. Amazing. And to remember, he is 92!! How wonderful to witness him and Michael Crawford conversing too. (There's hope for us all!)

I do not dispute his term "marine" (as opposed to merely "aquatic") for the reasons you point out , of course. However I think marine implies something more aquatic than we ever were, something like a dolphin. I therefore prefer "coastal" or your "littoral" for later Homo, as this makes it clear that were always somewhat terrestrial too.

I must say, I don't like the use of the word "chimpanzee" in any label.
We are most certainly not chimpanzees and, as Elaine's work showed, it's the differences between us and chimps that are most interesting and give most evidence for a more aquatic past. If the French (and Polish) do not have a word for "ape" that is hardly a reason to relabel the whole idea.

Similarly, with "concept", I understand that lay people might not be able to distinguish a theory from an hypothesis but I think if we want this to be taken seriously by scientists we should phrase it as an hypothesis or (as I prefer) a series of hypotheses (plural).

So, although I loved his talk and he made some very good points, I remain unmoved from the feeling that Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution remain the best all-round umbrella term, under which any individual idea can be expressed and remain completely compatible with it.

For me, personally, I still think the label "River Apes ... Coastal People" ticks all the boxes, as I've thought now for 24 years.

Anyway, thanks as always, for your great work, your input and support.

Best wishes

Algis Kuliukas



On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 3:26 AM Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@...>
wrote:
Hi all,  Beautiful lecture from a 92-year old: he'd call the aquatic ape
theory: The marine chimpanzee concept.  Michel made it clear IMO that until recently we must have been "marine"  (rather than simply
"aquatic"): -vernix caseosa, -huge brain, -iodine needs.  When the Red
Sea opened to the Gulf (5 Ma?) -P        ------ Origineel bericht ------
Van: m_verhaegen@...     Aan: AAT@groups.io     Verzonden: vrijdag
8 april 2022 12:23     Onderwerp: [AAT] WHAT TALK #06 Michel Odent
Sunday 10th April (8pm  West Australian Time)
------ Origineel bericht ------  Van: algis.kuliukas@...   Aan:
algis.kuliukas@...  Verzonden: vrijdag 8 april 2022 05:24
Onderwerp: WHAT TALK #06 Michel  Odent Sunday 10th April (8pm West
Australian Time)            Dear One  and All     I am actually quite
nervous with excitement about sending this invite  to you. I still can't
quite believe I'm doing it.     I am especially privileged to invite you
to the 6th WHAT (Waterside  Hypotheses/Aquatic Theory) Talk as the guest speaker this month is the  world renowned French obstetrician, Michel Odent, perhaps most famous  for his advancement of the use of birthing tubs in child birth, although  I know he'd rather be recognised for his pioneering work promoting  early, post-partum, skin-to-skin contact
between mother and baby.       More about Michel below but first, some
global zoom meeting "admin".     The talk is this Sunday (the day after
tomorrow). Please be careful  to check the start time for you locally.
It is difficult to choose a  start time that suits everyone in the world but around mid-day in Europe  seems to work quite well. For Michel in France, the talk will start at  1pm in the afternoon. So, for anyone tuning in in the UK, it'll be noon.  Here, in Western Australia it will be 8pm. In the Eastern Australian  States it'll be 10pm and in the Eastern seaboard in the USA it'll be 7am  in the morning (still Sunday
though.)     Use this global time map to help you, but please check, as
each  country might have local daylight-saving procedures going on.
The talk will be around 40 minutes or so, after which there will be  an opportunity for questions and discussions. I am using Zoom's waiting room feature this time so please be patient when you follow the link as I have no idea how many will be attending. As  always, please make sure you're on mute during the talk and, as always, it will be recorded and
posted to our YouTube channel and onto the web site.     Please feel
free to share this email invite with anyone you think  might be interested in why we are so different, physically, from the  chimpanzee.
Also, if you haven't already done so, please view the previous five
talks by following the links below...      WHAT Talks You Tube Channel
or     WHAT Talks Web site.     Remember, you can go to whattalks.com
from any browser, just by  typing "whattalks.com" directly into the
address line. (No need to  search Google.)     A link to the meeting
will be placed on the web site home page on the  day of the talk too, in
case you lose this email somehow.     So... see you on Sunday!!     All
the best     Algis Kuliukas     Now...     Michel Odent     Biographical
Sketch     Michel Odent, MD, has been in charge of the surgical unit and
the  maternity unit at the Pithiviers (France) state hospital (1962-1985).  During many years he has been the only doctor in charge of
about 1000  births a year.    Michel is most proud that he wrote the
first article about the  initiation of lactation during the hour following birth (1977). Most  significant here is that he was the author of the first article in the  medical literature about the use of birthing pools (Lancet 1983).  Michael also wrote the first article applying the ‘Gate Control Theory  of Pain’ to obstetrics (1975). He coined the term “hormone of love” when  mentioning oxytocin. He created the Primal Health Research database  (www.primalhealthresearch.com).  He has been a member of the  Professional Advisory Board of La Leche League
International for about  40 years.    Michel Odent is Visiting Professor
at the Odessa National Medical  University and Doctor Honoris Causa of
the University of Brasilia.     Talk Outline    "Selling the Marine
Chimpanzee Concept"   Several trustable persons - including Elaine
Morgan – have suggested  that the term “aquatic ape” is hardly marketable. Who can help us to  renew our  vocabulary? We’ll follow the advice of Stephen Munro, who  expressed his point of view during a previous “WHAT talk” session. He  emphasized that we should not waste time with experts, and offered a  list of valuable potential advisers.
MEETING LINK     Algis Kuliukas is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom
meeting.   Topic: WHAT Talk #06 - Michel Odent   Time: Apr 10, 2022
07:30 PM Perth    Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88649520649?pwd=bWNrRVFrQXFzQi9paGhhd3czOWVNUT09
Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649   Passcode: 326765   One tap mobile
+12532158782,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (Tacoma)
+16699006833,,88649520649#,,,,*326765# US (San Jose)    Dial by your
location           +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)           +1 669 900 6833
US (San Jose)           +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)           +1 929
436 2866 US (New York)           +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)   Meeting ID: 886 4952 0649   Passcode:
326765   Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kenT1wuaZd
-------------------------------------- Dr Algis Kuliukas Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology

-- Geriausi linkėjimai / Best regards
Algis Kuliukas









Pitching clams

Gareth Morgan
 

I intend to insert the following draft in https://www.academia.edu/40664984/The_Acheulean_hand_axe_a_toolmakers_perspective   between the section headed "Next, open your clam" and the one headed "Now eat your clam" , after some edits and rejigging the footnotes, which are currently included in the text for convenience.

Any other (sensible) suggestions as to how this extraordinary adaptation might have evolved would be very welcome.

G.


Harvesting  your clams 

Even with a clam shucker in hand, eating on the go would still be far from ideal. 

Firstly, the shards of discarded clam shells would be a significant health and safety issue for all members of the group, as anyone who has ever trodden on one can readily confirm.  

In addition, it takes time to open and eat a clam, which is a waste of harvesting time and, in tidal areas at least, time is very much of the essence. Carrying each clam ashore singly would be even less effective in terms of time management and it is important to remember that there would be small children ashore who also needed to eat. How then can we get the harvest to shore?  

A bag or basket would be invaluable, but, on the barren north-east African shore during the Miocene, we would find no long grass or withies for weaving nor any large land mammals to provide skins for fashioning any kind of creel to transport the catch.  

Maybe we could just toss the clams onto the beach… 

Here, we hit another problem. If the clams land out of the water but on wet sand or mud, then, by the time we go to retrieve them, all the clams will have disappeared. At a rate of up to one centimetre per second in some species, even large clams can bury themselves completely in under thirty seconds [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxjJpIB6vAk], so we would need to be able to throw them hard enough and far enough to get them up onto dry land. 

Now a trained chimpanzee can throw a ball at a speed of around 20 mph [https://scholar.harvard.edu/ntroach/evolution-throwing#:~:text=Despite%20being%20incredibly%20strong%20and%20very%20athletic%2C%20an%20adult%20male,used%20almost%20exclusively%20during%20sports. ]. Given the force of gravity, such a projectile would only travel some 15 or 20 feet before hitting the ground. 

 

To do any better we would need to completely redesign the muscles of the arm and shoulder. 

In the chimpanzee (left), as in other brachiating primates, the pectoral muscle can easily support the weight of the body when hanging from a branch by one hand. Thick tendons connect it to the upper arm, while the other end is firmly attached along the full length of the breastbone and down along the edge of the ribcage.  

 

Fig. 9 Chimpanzee, left. Human, right 

 

When the arm is held overhead, all the muscle fibres align vertically to support the weight of the ape’s body.  

In humans (right), the entire pectoral muscle has effectively been rotated through ninety degrees, so the fibres lie horizontally, making it impossible for even the fittest, strongest athletes to hang by one hand for more than a few seconds, because almost all of their body weight is simply suspended from the ligaments of the shoulder joint.  

What the human pectoral muscle does that the chimp’s cannot is to draw the arm rapidly across the front of the body while rotating the humerus. The difference is astonishing. A ten year old child can throw a ball twice as fast as the most experienced chimpanzee and top baseball players can achieve speeds in excess of 100 mph [https://scholar.harvard.edu/ntroach/evolution-throwing#:~:text=Despite%20being%20incredibly%20strong%20and%20very%20athletic%2C%20an%20adult%20male,used%20almost%20exclusively%20during%20sports. ]

 

This entire throwing action takes just 50 milliseconds and in that short space of time the rotation of the shoulder reaches angular velocities of over 6,000 degrees per second [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4025673/  ].  For comparison, the blink of an eye takes between 100 and 400 milliseconds. 

 

The biggest contribution to the projectile’s velocity comes from the rotation of the humerus around its long axis, which happens in just a few milliseconds and is by far the fastest movement produced by any part of the human body, and is actuated by the highly modified pectoral muscle [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12267.epdf?sharing_token=aQzQkbRugrZHB-Zk88Xa_dRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MqzQWPH9vWje62pNcKdlRhVkVJT93RZsQx1QdydBo4KVCY1oa41rtH6_znWNSyxJ6PkvRGUJo5b7NvnTXO7QdWAWhjY8yv_duXHmmdEKh2FwVmnF237bRBbLmPnOlq2txdfKlKJQD43mAuU536SPprgVFWi8ECaFXuUbqQGkh57w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.latimes.com ].  

 

 

Fig 10. Pectoral muscle showing crossover rotation mechanism 

 

 

This unique human adaptation has virtually no application at all in the modern world other than in baseball, cricket and javelin throwing. 

 

It is widely assumed that our throwing skills arose from throwing spears at herbivores, but in a long day’s hunt it would be rare to have more than a very few opportunities to do so. The extensive physical adaptations required to make a thrown spear an effective weapon could never have evolved from such sporadic practice, though once developed, it would certainly have been used for that purpose with great effect.  

 

A spear thrown at the speeds a chimp can manage, on the other hand, would cause little worse than a bruise and, even when standing within 2 metres of a target, nine times out of ten they miss [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140225-human-vs-animal-who-throws-best ]. 

 

Nor could this extraordinary specialisation of the pectoral muscle have developed from habitual daily swimming exercise.  

 

The overarm crawl uses mostly the deltoids, latissimus dorsi, trapezius, triceps and biceps muscles, while the breast stroke, which is also the arm action used when swimming underwater, mainly involves the latissimus dorsi, biceps and triceps, brachialis, brachioradialis, and deltoids. The upper section of the pectoral muscle comes into play only in the recovery phase of the strokes, not the power stroke, and the bulk of the muscle serves no purpose at all in any swimming stroke.  

 

Note: It should be mentioned that, contrary to popular belief, adult women can throw just as well as their male counterparts, allowing for their smaller stature [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23930550/ ]. In fact, over the last 100 years when male javelin throwers have improved their distance records by around 50%, the women have increased theirs by over 300%.  


Meanwhile, young children would no doubt happily scamper along the shoreline to collect the clams from where they landed and practice lobbing them towards the picnic area ready for lunch. 

Individuals and groups lacking this essential harvesting capacity would struggle at certain times to consume enough of this low-calorie food to survive, so natural selection would inevitably refine this radical redesign over countless generations. 


421 - 440 of 74074