Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Review and discuss existing books. This section is also covers individual chapters published in edited works.

Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:06 pm

Ch 3: A Wading Component in the Origin of Hominin Bipedalism (pp 36- 66)
Algis V Kuliukas
in: Was Man More Aquatic In The Past?
Fifty Years After Alister Hardy Waterside Hypothesis Of Human Evolution
Eds. Vaneechoutte M., Verhaegen M., Kuliukas A.
eISBN: 978-1-60805-244-8, 2011.

For over 150 years the field of palaeo-anthropology has grappled with several problems of understanding human evolution, notably those explaining key differences between human beings and our most closely related species, the African great apes. The first difference to be explained, perhaps in terms of importance but certainly in terms of chronology, is our bipedality.

This chapter will review the models of hominin bipedal origins published to date, and categorize them, as was done by Rose [1], by the adaptive mechanism being suggested. In addition, it will propose a new evaluative framework against which each model may be assessed and compared. In this evaluation, published wading models appear to be among the strongest although they are among the least well reported in university-level text books, a discrepancy attributed here to their association with the so-called ‘ aquatic ape hypothesis’ (AAH). Despite their apparent strengths, published wading models do nevertheless contain weaknesses. This chapter addresses a few of those weaknesses either theoretically or through studies, such as one obtaining new empirical data comparing the energy efficiency of different bipedal gaits in water. Furthermore, a series of falsifiable predictions of the wading hypothesis are made about the postcranial anatomy of australopithecines.

The chapter concludes by proposing a specific timescale and ecological niche where such wading behavior could have provided a stable evolutionary scenario in early hominins that is compatible with the fossil record and other models of human evolution.


http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/content.php?9781608052448/2011/00000001/00000001/0036.SGM
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:25 pm

This paper includes a link to a dynamic web page where people are able to evaluate models of bipedalism for themselves.

UploadedFiles/Wading%20Paper/Supporting%20Files/Model_Evaluator.html

I did this to encourage people to try to think about the models objectively and to assess them rather like an examiner marks a university-level essay.

I'd be very pleased to see how other people rank ideas of bipedalism and, more importantly, how they justify that ranking. I'm still trying to learn why wading models aren't the default explanation for anthropology undergraduates.

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Postby Taxidea » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:50 am

AlgisKuliukas wrote:This paper includes a link to a dynamic web page where people are able to evaluate models of bipedalism for themselves.

UploadedFiles/Wading%20Paper/Supporting%20Files/Model_Evaluator.html

I did this to encourage people to try to think about the models objectively and to assess them rather like an examiner marks a university-level essay.

I'd be very pleased to see how other people rank ideas of bipedalism and, more importantly, how they justify that ranking. I'm still trying to learn why wading models aren't the default explanation for anthropology undergraduates.

Algis


I am at complete loss as to what you think this little device can achieve? Looks to be a perfect way
to assert a conclusion then construct a cladogramish justification for a pre-ordained conclusion.
How are your values referenced so one can try and give an objective weight to any particular
assessment? This thing is what you think genuine cladograms are but actually aren't. In a real
cladogram if one gives a value of 0 or 1 to, for example, presence of sagittal crest you can, because of the
references provided, give a clear picture of what you mean by giving a particular value to a particualar
fossil and can have a useful discussion about whether restricting the choice of values to 0 and 1
represents a useful way to quantify the degree of sagittal cresting. In your proposed example
you , under the heading of predation, assign 'stalking' a 9 and 'general foraging' a 5. Without fleshing
out a way of indicating what those terms are even supposed to mean these numbers mean nothing.

As a general point. Since human bipedalism appears, at this point, to be a refinement of a behaviour
that may have been present in hominoids for a very long time I suggest that such a discussion as you
propose be restricted to those sorts of selective pressures which lead to enhanced bipedalism. Throwing
in things such as threat displays and wading just muddy the waters. We're dealing with Euprimates
who have been facultative bipeds for 40+ million years and thus could do those sorts of things all along.
And forget the business of seeking a cause. Reeks of orthogenesis.
Taxidea
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:20 am

Re: Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:18 am

Taxidea wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:This paper includes a link to a dynamic web page where people are able to evaluate models of bipedalism for themselves.

UploadedFiles/Wading%20Paper/Supporting%20Files/Model_Evaluator.html

I did this to encourage people to try to think about the models objectively and to assess them rather like an examiner marks a university-level essay.

I'd be very pleased to see how other people rank ideas of bipedalism and, more importantly, how they justify that ranking. I'm still trying to learn why wading models aren't the default explanation for anthropology undergraduates.

Algis


I am at complete loss as to what you think this little device can achieve? Looks to be a perfect way
to assert a conclusion then construct a cladogramish justification for a pre-ordained conclusion.
How are your values referenced so one can try and give an objective weight to any particular
assessment?



Choose "Load Pre-Existing Assessment" - Simple or Detailed. The simple one has no weighting on the factors and only three scales 0, 5, 9 for poor/fair/good.
The detailed one has weightings and marks are given between 0-9.

See where you disagree with me on those,

Taxidea wrote:
This thing is what you think genuine cladograms are but actually aren't. In a real
cladogram if one gives a value of 0 or 1 to, for example, presence of sagittal crest you can, because of the
references provided, give a clear picture of what you mean by giving a particular value to a particualar
fossil and can have a useful discussion about whether restricting the choice of values to 0 and 1
represents a useful way to quantify the degree of sagittal cresting. In your proposed example
you , under the heading of predation, assign 'stalking' a 9 and 'general foraging' a 5. Without fleshing
out a way of indicating what those terms are even supposed to mean these numbers mean nothing.



You seem to be confused. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cladograms. I'm not trying to construct any phylogenetic notions here.

Taxidea wrote:
As a general point. Since human bipedalism appears, at this point, to be a refinement of a behaviour
that may have been present in hominoids for a very long time I suggest that such a discussion as you
propose be restricted to those sorts of selective pressures which lead to enhanced bipedalism. Throwing
in things such as threat displays and wading just muddy the waters. We're dealing with Euprimates
who have been facultative bipeds for 40+ million years and thus could do those sorts of things all along.
And forget the business of seeking a cause. Reeks of orthogenesis.


You seem to have missed the point completely.

There are several (I reckon about 30+) published ideas in the literature about bipedal origins.

No-one has ever tried to assess which ones are better than others. This is my attempt to do so, but I've openned it up - like a marking rubric - so that anyone can plug in their own marks. I encourage you to do so so that I can see where my views differ.

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Postby Taxidea » Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:59 pm

AlgisKuliukas wrote:
Taxidea wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:This paper includes a link to a dynamic web page where people are able to evaluate models of bipedalism for themselves.

UploadedFiles/Wading%20Paper/Supporting%20Files/Model_Evaluator.html

I did this to encourage people to try to think about the models objectively and to assess them rather like an examiner marks a university-level essay.

I'd be very pleased to see how other people rank ideas of bipedalism and, more importantly, how they justify that ranking. I'm still trying to learn why wading models aren't the default explanation for anthropology undergraduates.

Algis


I am at complete loss as to what you think this little device can achieve? Looks to be a perfect way
to assert a conclusion then construct a cladogramish justification for a pre-ordained conclusion.
How are your values referenced so one can try and give an objective weight to any particular
assessment?



Choose "Load Pre-Existing Assessment" - Simple or Detailed. The simple one has no weighting on the factors and only three scales 0, 5, 9 for poor/fair/good.
The detailed one has weightings and marks are given between 0-9.

See where you disagree with me on those,


Disagree about what? I have no way of assessing anybody else's notion of the efficacy of carrying food, for
example. You say 9. I say 5. What gives any weight to either of our estimations of what we think about
the efficacy of food carrying.

Taxidea wrote:
This thing is what you think genuine cladograms are but actually aren't. In a real
cladogram if one gives a value of 0 or 1 to, for example, presence of sagittal crest you can, because of the
references provided, give a clear picture of what you mean by giving a particular value to a particualar
fossil and can have a useful discussion about whether restricting the choice of values to 0 and 1
represents a useful way to quantify the degree of sagittal cresting. In your proposed example
you , under the heading of predation, assign 'stalking' a 9 and 'general foraging' a 5. Without fleshing
out a way of indicating what those terms are even supposed to mean these numbers mean nothing.



You seem to be confused. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cladograms. I'm not trying to construct any phylogenetic notions here.



That's why I said "cladogramish". You seem to think well constructed cladograms are as hopelessly subjective
as your device is. They're not. That's what I was trying to point out.

Taxidea wrote:
As a general point. Since human bipedalism appears, at this point, to be a refinement of a behaviour
that may have been present in hominoids for a very long time I suggest that such a discussion as you
propose be restricted to those sorts of selective pressures which lead to enhanced bipedalism. Throwing
in things such as threat displays and wading just muddy the waters. We're dealing with Euprimates
who have been facultative bipeds for 40+ million years and thus could do those sorts of things all along.
And forget the business of seeking a cause. Reeks of orthogenesis.


You seem to have missed the point completely.

There are several (I reckon about 30+) published ideas in the literature about bipedal origins.

No-one has ever tried to assess which ones are better than others. This is my attempt to do so, but I've openned it up - like a marking rubric - so that anyone can plug in their own marks. I encourage you to do so so that I can see where my views differ.

Algis



Without some independent way of measuring or asessing an assignment of values what's the point? 'Survival
value of wading' You say 9. I say 0. So what?
Taxidea
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:20 am

Re: Kuliukas 2011 - A Wading Component in Bipedal Origins

Postby AlgisKuliukas » Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:12 am

Taxidea wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:
Taxidea wrote:
AlgisKuliukas wrote:This paper includes a link to a dynamic web page where people are able to evaluate models of bipedalism for themselves.

UploadedFiles/Wading%20Paper/Supporting%20Files/Model_Evaluator.html

I did this to encourage people to try to think about the models objectively and to assess them rather like an examiner marks a university-level essay.

I'd be very pleased to see how other people rank ideas of bipedalism and, more importantly, how they justify that ranking. I'm still trying to learn why wading models aren't the default explanation for anthropology undergraduates.

Algis


I am at complete loss as to what you think this little device can achieve? Looks to be a perfect way
to assert a conclusion then construct a cladogramish justification for a pre-ordained conclusion.
How are your values referenced so one can try and give an objective weight to any particular
assessment?



Choose "Load Pre-Existing Assessment" - Simple or Detailed. The simple one has no weighting on the factors and only three scales 0, 5, 9 for poor/fair/good.
The detailed one has weightings and marks are given between 0-9.

See where you disagree with me on those,


Disagree about what? I have no way of assessing anybody else's notion of the efficacy of carrying food, for
example. You say 9. I say 5. What gives any weight to either of our estimations of what we think about
the efficacy of food carrying.



Do a full assessment. Give each factor a priority. Then, copy the results as a text output and paste them into a posting here.

Then, I can load them and see where we disagree. Then we can discuss, in detail, the disagreements.

Anyone else can come here and do the same. This is the whole point of this tool.

Compare this with the status quo at the moment. Authorities write text books about human evolution. They arbitrarily pick a few of these ideas to give prominence to. They might write a few words in support of their favourite ideas and a few criticisms of the ones they think are silly, but it's hardly an open and rational debate.

It would be great if you could accept this and agree that the bipedalism model evaluator might help to clarify why some models are seen as better than others.

Taxidea wrote:
Taxidea wrote:
This thing is what you think genuine cladograms are but actually aren't. In a real
cladogram if one gives a value of 0 or 1 to, for example, presence of sagittal crest you can, because of the
references provided, give a clear picture of what you mean by giving a particular value to a particualar
fossil and can have a useful discussion about whether restricting the choice of values to 0 and 1
represents a useful way to quantify the degree of sagittal cresting. In your proposed example
you , under the heading of predation, assign 'stalking' a 9 and 'general foraging' a 5. Without fleshing
out a way of indicating what those terms are even supposed to mean these numbers mean nothing.



You seem to be confused. This has nothing whatsoever to do with cladograms. I'm not trying to construct any phylogenetic notions here.



That's why I said "cladogramish". You seem to think well constructed cladograms are as hopelessly subjective
as your device is. They're not. That's what I was trying to point out.



No, I don't. Please be accurate. I think cladograms based on subjective assessment of skeletal bits and bobs are hopeless, not ones based on genetic and other molecular data. This exercise is not aimed at producing anything like a cladogram, it's aimed at asssessing and comparing the many ideas that have been published about bipedal origins. Different thing completely.

Taxidea wrote:
Taxidea wrote:
As a general point. Since human bipedalism appears, at this point, to be a refinement of a behaviour
that may have been present in hominoids for a very long time I suggest that such a discussion as you
propose be restricted to those sorts of selective pressures which lead to enhanced bipedalism. Throwing
in things such as threat displays and wading just muddy the waters. We're dealing with Euprimates
who have been facultative bipeds for 40+ million years and thus could do those sorts of things all along.
And forget the business of seeking a cause. Reeks of orthogenesis.


You seem to have missed the point completely.

There are several (I reckon about 30+) published ideas in the literature about bipedal origins.

No-one has ever tried to assess which ones are better than others. This is my attempt to do so, but I've openned it up - like a marking rubric - so that anyone can plug in their own marks. I encourage you to do so so that I can see where my views differ.

Algis



Without some independent way of measuring or asessing an assignment of values what's the point? 'Survival
value of wading' You say 9. I say 0. So what?


Do a full assessment. Post it. Then I'll compare it with mine and we can argue about why you'd give a '0' for a particular factor that I'd give a '9' for it.

Have you ever marked a student's essay? If so, have you done this with a marking rubric in a team of people doing the same thing? Discussing such diagreements about such individual assessments is helpful in getting a truer picture of how good the essay is. Surely you can see that?

I think the same process should be done here, don't you? If not, why is it better to have individuals coming up with their own cherry picked favourites without discussing why?

Algis
Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan. (p118)
Kuliukas, A., Morgan, E. (2011). Aquatic scenarios in the thinking on human evolution: What are they and how do they compare?. In: Vaneechoutte, M., Verhaegen, M., Kuliukas, A. (2011). Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?
User avatar
AlgisKuliukas
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:24 pm


Return to Published Books & Chapters in Edited Volumes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron