The amount of rancor in scientific fields seems correlate with the difficulty of disproving hypotheses. Jared Diamond wrote an essay about this once, comparing ecology and physiology. Physiologists are more polite than ecologists because one's ideas were likely to be put to a definitive experimental test in the near future. If you are obnoxious and are proven wrong, you'll get your face rubbed in it. Ecology is a much messier subject. Experiments are hard. Ecological systems are diverse and complex. If you're lucky you can ride a wrong idea into retirement before everyone decides you were wrong. Paleoanthropology makes ecology look easy.

The following comments are just speculative personal opinion and therefore carry no more weight than that.

For many people in the field the subject of evolution seems to be almost a form of religious belief (just think about the frequent obsession with evolution being a 'fact') as it deals with the nature of origins, and the ultimate origin story is that of humanity. There is a frequent fixation on having the ultimate truth and as such that truth is treated as beyond contestation and hence any contestation is treated as heresy and heretics - well you know what happens to them. And there is also power and prestige in dominating the origin narrative which leads to suppression of alternatives (such as the orangutan theory) and even control over the evidence (such as preventing or reducing access to fossils).  

These are just some possibilities. No doubt there are others. Maybe paleoanthropology is no more contentious than other high profile fields such as dinosaurs.

The amount of rancor in scientific fields seems correlate with the difficulty of disproving hypotheses. Jared Diamond wrote an essay about this once, comparing ecology and physiology. Physiologists are more polite than ecologists because one's ideas were likely to be put to a definitive experimental test in the near future. If you are obnoxious and are proven wrong, you'll get your face rubbed in it. Ecology is a much messier subject. Experiments are hard. Ecological systems are diverse and complex. If you're lucky you can ride a wrong idea into retirement before everyone decides you were wrong. Paleoanthropology makes ecology look easy.

First of all, I would argue that paleoanthropology is not strictly a science, but even if it were, it would be far-from the MOST contentious ... there are a number more so ... political science, for one, comes-to-mind as an apt example. Psychology and economics are other quite rancorous examples (although you may, justifiably, disqualify these also to be admitted as sciences).

Paleoanthropology is a comparative science that depends on fossil specimens,

all of which are individually unique. Fossils representing the same species are frequently distributed among several institutions around the world, and all must, ideally, be seen by researchers working on the groups to which they belong. In beginning this commentary, it may thus be worthwhile to review the sequence of

events involved as new material enters the arena of scientific debate. New fossils are found by individuals or field teams and are deposited in museum or equivalent collections. To become part of the scientific database, they have to be identified to species and they have to be described in a recognized vehicle of publication. If

they are believed to represent a previously unidentified species, they additionally

have to be formally named. Also standard practice at this stage is a preliminary interpretation of the material’s phylogenetic significance. However, such interpretation by the describers merely introduces an ongoing process that will continue indefi-

nitely, and will invariably involve many other systematists in the field.

Maybe the nature of the subject has something to do with it - that perhaps specific findings are less aggravating than general theories - and the greater the generality the greater potential for aggravation. At least I notice, for example, not many are going to get worked up over the validity of a particular species name (not that there can be different views), but if one is getting into the nature of species then that's a whole different ball game. I for one would certainly view psychology and economics as fields with scientific aspects. Perhaps this points to another factor, that the consequences of a particular theory have an impact on their potential for arousing contention and even anger.

If PA is the most contentious of all sciences, it's because of anthropocentrism IMO, which also seems to be the main reason why so many traditional assumptions in PA are wrong, e.g.

1) Many PAs think that australopithecines are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan or Gorilla, because they were "bipedal", but comparative, embryological & other data suggest that Pan & Gorilla also had more bipedal ancestors (discussed in attachment).

2) Many PAs believe that our Pleistocene ancestors were "endurance runners", but this is physiologically, nutritionally & otherwise impossible, e.g. the human olfactory bulb is only 45 % of the chimp's, whereas if we went from forest to plain we had evolved a keener olfaction. Moreover, salt & water (sweat) are scarce in savannas, as are most or all brain-specific nutrients: iodine, DHA, taurine, oligo-elements. Etc.

Marc

Anthropocentrism is the bane of all scientific endeavour and has for centuries confounded it.  It is interesting that Bob mentions psychology as more contentous than paleoanthropology.  Both contain toxic levels of the above mentioned ingredient.  

This is not my field, however I believe the reason is that PA flies in the face of many religious preconceptions. The subject of the origins of mankind is central to all religions. So you know this will always be a hot topic. When anything in science threatens religious preconceptions, many find that to be intolerable. It threatens their entire understanding of reality, their comfort zone.

Of course, astronomy had that same effect, centuries ago. And then slowly, the religions relented. Possibly the same will occur, over centuries, with PA.

People should ask themselves, for example, who most virulently opposes any theories suggesting random mutations followed by natural selection? Does the opposition consist primarily of scientists, in search of greater scientific rigor? Or is the virulent opposition because the theory would threaten a religious belief system? I suggest the latter far more frequently than the former.

Another reason for scientific endeavors to cause furor is when these might threaten political correctness. And by that I mean, when scientific discoveries or theories might potentially be seen as offensive to certain people. Anything with potential for offense must always be discredited, hence the furor. One would be justified to point out how science has been ABUSED, many times, to justify offensive policies. So I suppose, this counter effect is to be expected.

Albert,

Some thoughts on your comments below:

“This is not my field, however I believe the reason is that PA flies in the face of many religious preconceptions.”

‘many” – need to be specific

“The subject of the origins of mankind is central to all religions. So you know this will always be a hot topic.”

But it is a hot topic within science so that’s not the necessary issue. In some religions the origins of mankind is only in spiritual origins, not science.

“When anything in science threatens religious preconceptions, many find that to be intolerable. It threatens their entire understanding of reality, their comfort zone.”

Who is ‘they’? One could just as much say, and with justification, that ‘When anything in science threatens scientific preconceptions, many find that to be intolerable”. Intolerance is a human condition common to many of religious and scientific persuasions.

“Of course, astronomy had that same effect, centuries ago. And then slowly, the religions relented. Possibly the same will occur, over centuries, with PA.”

What astronomy did was show that faith is not about the nature of the empirical world.

“People should ask themselves, for example, who most virulently opposes any theories suggesting random mutations followed by natural selection? Does the opposition consist primarily of scientists, in search of greater scientific rigor? Or is the virulent opposition because the theory would threaten a religious belief system? I suggest the latter far more frequently than the former.”

Well you might be right, but the point you acknowledge is that scientists (who may or may not also be religious) also ‘virulently oppose’ (tricky language there) the view that evolution is based on random mutations followed by natural selection.

“Another reason for scientific endeavors to cause furor is when these might threaten political correctness. And by that I mean, when scientific discoveries or theories might potentially be seen as offensive to certain people. Anything with potential for offense must always be discredited, hence the furor. One would be justified to point out how science has been ABUSED, many times, to justify offensive policies. So I suppose, this counter effect is to be expected.”

Yes things can go both ways. Scientists have indeed committed fraud at times. Furor can also occur when scientific endeavors threaten scientific correctness (but not really sure what 'correctness' is here).

The ancestral debate has now taken a new turn to the subject debate. PA is highly interdisplinary and flexuble and accumulates forthcoming evidences and theories. So we enjoy debating our ancestry despite difference of opinion. Evolution is of course our central dogma in PA and we cannot part with that.

>  Dear Bob,

First of all, I would argue that paleoanthropology is not strictly a science

>  Dear Barry,

Anthropocentrism is the bane of all scientific endeavour and has for centuries confounded it.  It is interesting that Bob mentions psychology as more contentous than paleoanthropology.  Both contain toxic levels of the above mentioned ingredient.  

I know some people in France having a PhD in Paleoanthropology who could feel like strangling you to write such things. But as they are gentle persons they would probably just smile - from their excavation sites in France, Greece, Egypt, Sudan or Ethiopia, ….- thinking of some poor Anglo-Saxons having had to invent the man of Piltdown to be allowed to speak of paleoanthropology …. :=)

The Piltdown Man was a spectacular example of scientific chauvinism.  We had to have a 'British' hominid.  Congratulations to the French and American anthropologists who spotted this fake decades before it was exposed.

Still, we now have the Boxcombe Man, he is not a fake...but he is not 'British' either.  

John, it's simple, really. The idea that living species could evolve without "intelligent design," or "supernatural intervention," is unacceptable to the religiously devout. This has nothing to do with science. This backlash occurs whenever science suggests that previous "explanations," which pivoted on supernatural intervention, might be explained WITHOUT a need for such supernatural input. But it would be very disingenuous to pretend that such backlash is based on scientific principles.

Legitimately scientific opposition will also exist, but it is addressed scientifically. For example, "punctuated evolution," to explain why the process may not be linear, but instead discontinuous at various points in time. This is the normal scientific process, as opposed to an effort to dismiss everything outright, for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

Science has always strived to explain, quantify, replicate, what was previously attributed to "magic" (call it what you will - something that humans should accept to never understand). PA is but one of many disciplines that do this.

Albert,

I fully agree that the idea that species could evolve without “intelligent design” or “supernatural intervention” would be unacceptable to religious persons. And I agree that this has nothing to do with science. Conversely, science can say nothing about the matter either way since science is just our experimental and observational interpretation of the universe as we experience it. Science does not provide explanations without the need for supernatural input. All it can do is provide explanations in terms of those experiments or observations. It cannot make any suggestion as to whether or not a supernatural input was involved.

Many religiously devout people have no problems with science in general or evolution in particular. One should not confuse religion in general with its fundamentalist variants. See, for example, Karen Armstrong's The Case For God.

Agree fully with Peter's observation

Peter, agreed. Which is why astronomers are no longer excommunicated by the Vatican, for example, for suggesting that planet Earth might not be the center of the universe.

Perhaps I  should clarify. Paleoanthropology would most likely NOT be as contentious as it is, were it not for the religious angle. What creates the furor, IMO, are NOT the disagreements on scientific minutiae, which clearly do also exist, as in any other scientific endeavor.

Dear Barry,

I disagree with your viewpoint (espoused on another thread) that paleobiology is an esoteric pursuit. In any case, compared against archaeology (or certainly paleoanthropology), IMO paleobiology is not very esoteric at all ;)

Bob Skiles on Shameless Inventions

"Archaeologists are the most esoteric of the esoteric. We not only answer questions no one ever cared to ask; we shamelessly invent questions for our answers. Then we publish all in a jargon so obscure that only the initiated can understand."

~ Bob Skiles, 1977

https://books.google.com/books?id=16IYDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT20&lpg=PT20&dq=%22Bob+Skiles+esoteric+questions+answers&source=bl&ots=I4BQ5eMbcq&sig=T2pzFtedehToDKbvUrIKnyWZasE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixycDNqbHSAhWF4iYKHTYnC9YQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Bob%20Skiles%20esoteric%20questions%20answers&f=false

Yes, Barry, indeed: "Anthropocentrism is the bane of all scientific endeavour and has for centuries confounded it." Anthropocentrism, egocentrism, chauvinism, geocentrism... Thinking that what is more important to yourself is more important tout court, e.g. in PA, the fossil that you found is a "human ancestor". We have several examples: not only Piltdown or Ramapithecus, but IMO also Taung, Lucy, Naledi, Ardipithecus & others - all were once (or are still) believed to be "human ancestors". In fact, statistically alone, this is impossible: many PAs believe that all or nearly all australopithecines (100s of fossils) are closer relatives of Homo than of Pan of Gorilla, IOW, 1 extant species has 100s of fossils, whereas 4 or 5 other extant species have +- 0 relatives: bonobo, chimps, western & easter gorilla, IOW, in Africa humans have 100s of fossils, but African apes virtually none, but extant Asian apes (orangutans) do have lots of fossil relatives: Sivapithecus, Gigantopithecus, Lufengpithecus & others.

PAs often assume that in locomotor traits where humans differ from Pan this trait must have evolved "for" bipedality: Long & adducted big toes? for BP! Longitudinal pedal arch? BP! Low pelvis? BP! Valgus knee? BP! etc.  But cursorial animals (BP or QP) don't have e.g. long & adducted big toes, compare the foot of an ostrich with that of a penguin or that of a flamingo. Ostriches, like cursorial tetrapods (BP & QP), are digiti- or unguligrade and have very long & strong middle digital rays, and short & atrophied outer digital rays, but humans, australopithecines & prenatal chimps have plantigrade feet with rel.long first & last digital rays, much more like those of flamingos or penguins than of ostriches & other cursorials. This implies that our so-called running-feet are a secondary & recent adaptation, and that there is no reason to believe that australopithecines are human ancestors to the exclusion of Pan & Gorilla. For a more thorough discussion, please see attachment.

Palaeanthropology is a multidisciplinary science, so uses multiple methods. They are all science. It is one of the most rigorous scientific fields.  If you think the problem has something to do with anthropocentrism, see my papers posted on researchgate, where I take up this question in defining religion and a trans-species definition of religion. This is a paradigm shift. 

Yes, Paleoanthropology is a multidisciplinary science which mixes the competences of several other sciences.

From the improvements in C14 datation to the discovery that the benefits of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for the health were already known by Neanderthals 48,000 years ago. See :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28273061

« Evidence for self-medication was detected in an El Sidrón Neanderthal with a dental abscess and a chronic gastrointestinal pathogen (Enterocytozoon bieneusi). » (I underline)

« Self-medication » by herbs naturally containing acetylsalicylic acid ! (Seen on TV today).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28273061

.... and natural antibiotic !  See also :

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308131218.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308131218.htm

Is PA the most contentious of all sciences? Well possible: PA is "personal". Sciences often progress dramatically (e.g. Darwin, Galileo) when they become less anthropo-, geo-, ego-centric. Unfortunately, traditional PA is (understandably) extremely anthropocentric (pre-Darwinian) & wrong in several important points, e.g. (1) human ancestors did not become bipedal by leaving the forest for the savanna, (2) H.erectus were no "distance-runners", (3) australopithecines did not live in dry savannas, (4) they were no human ancestors to the exclusion of chimps & gorillas, (5) Homo did not evolve larger brains by eating meat.

Response to Marc's contentions:

PA is wrong in several important points, e.g.

(1)    human ancestors did not become bipedal by leaving the forest for the savanna. Agreed, but various paleoanthropologists also agree.

(2) H.erectus were no "distance-runners", Neutral myself on this one.

(3) australopithecines did not live in dry savannas. Agreed.

(4) there were no human ancestors to the exclusion of chimps & gorillas. Disagree.

 (5) Homo did not evolve larger brains by eating meat. Agreed – that’s a Lamarckian argument.

Marc has raised interesting points. John has replied well to some.

1. May be acqaborealism played considerable role in erect bipedalism but can we altogether dismiss the savanna? I am doubtful.

2. had H.  erectus not been distant runners, how could they colonised far east and SE Asia in short time?

3. It is difficult for most animals to live in dry savannas; the same is true for Australopiths. Woodland Savannas with many water bodies is a requirement for them includung early Homo. But, not necessarily acqaborealism.

4. I agree with John Grehan.

5. Then why  Neanderthal hunters evolved large brain?

H.Erectus was a meat eater and as such would have ranged further to obtain it.  This was probably the origin of their 'migration' behaviour.  While carniverous animals are still in the main territorial their territories tend to be larger.  

It is unlikely that Australopithecines lived on dry and open savannah since the sparcity of water and shelter combined with the presence of fast moving carnivores would have made it very hostile territory.   Acting in groups howver they could have made frequent excursions further afield and standing upright would have been an evolutionary advantage.  Forragers could have been protected by sentinels much in the way that meerkats are.  

It is not the size of the brain that is most important it is its physiology, in particular the development of the pre-frontal cortex.  

good greeting :

  , A very important question of the origin of human race and predecessors, the most complex issues of scientific research are complicated, and believed that the religious interpretation which says that God created Adam in the earth and from which we proceed, is evidence that the human race is integrated, created on earth

Africa today has a wide variety of habitats ranging from tall evergreen forests to deserts. Dry forests and shrubby woodlands are common as are savannas with scattered trees. There are gallery forests with tall trees next to more open communities. Chimpanzees and baboons exploit a fair range habitat types. These species are often treated as ecological analogues to Australopithecines and early Homo. it seems likely to me that the latter also probably exploited a fair range of habitats. Modern humans exploit them all of course.

Brain size seems to account for a lot. See Reader and Laland. The alleged reorganization of the human cortex is greatly exaggerated according to some distinguished neurobiologists. See Krubitzer and Stolzenberg. The idea that humans came to eat meat and other nutrient dense foods because of a trade-off between brain size and gut length is perfectly respectable (Aiello and Wheeler 1995). And these days it is not so easy to dismiss Lamarckian ideas out of hand (Jablonka 2013, West-Eberhard 2005).

Jablonka, E. (2013). "Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline." Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology.

Krubitzer, L. and D. S. Stolzenberg (2014). "The evolutionary masquerade: genetic and epigenetic contributions to the neocortex." Current Opinion in Neurobiology 24(0): 157-165.

Laland, K. N. and S. M. Reader (2010). Comparative perspectives on human innovation. Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology. M. J. O'Brien and S. J. Shennan. Cambridge MA, MIT Press: 37-51.

Reader, S. M. and K. N. Laland (2002). "Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4436-4441.

West-Eberhard, M. J. (2005). "Phenotypic accommodation: adaptive innovation due to developmental plasticity." Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 304B(6): 610-618.

Thanks, John. I said PA is wrong in several important points:

(1) Human ancestors did not become bipedal by leaving the forest for the savanna. "Agreed, but various paleoanthropologists also agree." Yes, human locomotion evolved mosaic-like, IMO due to an aquarboreal to littoral to wading-walking lifestyle,  not due to cursorialism.

(2) H.erectus were no distance-runners. "Neutral myself on this one." Well, all cursorial tetrapods (bi- & quadrupeds, short & long runners) have atrophied outer digits & very long & strong middle digits (ostrich, kangaroo, horse etc.) but wading & swimming tetrapods have rel.broad & flat feet with all digits +-equally long or short (Homo, prenatal Pan, australopiths, naledi, penguin, duck, flamingo, grebe, water-possum).

(3) Australopithecines did not live in dry savannas. "Agreed." OK.

(4) They were no human ancestors to the exclusion of chimps & gorillas. "Disagree." Please see attachment, John: fossil-hunters believe to have found 100s if not 1000s of "human ancestors" but +-0 bonobo, chimp, lowland & highland gorilla ancestors. This is anthropocentric (pre-darwinian) thinking, and statistically impossible, unless there's an enormous bias in human ancestors to fossilize thousand times better than chimp or gorilla ancestors (although there are lots of orangutan fossil relatives: Siva-, Giganto-, Lufgeng- etc.pithecus). Fossil-hunters interpret every fossil humanlike trait (e.g. flat feet, short iliac bones) as derived, whereas these are often primitive-hominid: who doesn't want to discover a human rather than chimp ancestor?

(5) Homo did not evolve larger brains by eating meat. "Agreed – that’s a Lamarckian argument." Yes, but my arguments are comparative: the rel.largest brains are seen in dolphins, seals & humans. Early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally along African& Eurasian coasts & rivers, where brain-specific nutrients are abundant: DHA, taurine, iodine & oligo-elements.

Why is paleoanthropology the most contentious of sciences?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_paleoanthropology_the_most_contentious_of_sciences?view=59671fe796b7e4c834704236 [accessed Jul 13, 2017].

The usual explanation for the lack of Gorilla and Chimp ancestor fossils is that they live in tropical wet forests and such forests have acid soils that are unfavorable for bone preservation. Australopiths and Homo lived in drier environments with basic soils favorable for bone preservation.

Thanks, Anek. You said:

1. "May be aquarborealism played considerable role in erect bipedalism." Aquarborealism is not about the evolution of Homo IMO, but albout the early hominoid & hominid evolution including australopiths (Mio-Pliocene), it can help explain vertical climbing & wading in ape & human ancestors, but not fully our very derived present-day locomotion. "...but can we altogether dismiss the savanna? I am doubtful." Yes, we can: 1 thing is constant in human evolution: the waterside (sometimes even in savannas): Homo fossils are found on islands kms oversea (Crete, Flores...), at coasts all over the Old World from Gibraltar to the Cape to Eritrea to Mojokerto amid edible shellfish, or else in river valleys & oxbow lakes, typically with beavers & reeds.

2. "Had H.erectus not been distant runners, how could they colonised far east and SE Asia in short time?" Along the coasts, of course, and from there inland along rivers. Fast worldwide expansion is typically seen in coastal animals (e.g. pakicetids, pinnipeds, Homo). You can't (distant)run from Africa to Flores.

3. "It is difficult for most animals to live in dry savannas; the same is true for Australopiths. Woodland Savannas with many water bodies is a requirement for them including early Homo. But, not necessarily aquarborealism." The aquarboreal hypothesis is based on comparative data (see attachment), it's about Mio-Pliocene hominoids & hominids incl.australopiths, but not about Homo.

4. "I agree with John Grehan." This is outdated PA anthropocentrism: they find 100s of so-called "human ancestors", but no gorilla, bonobo or chimp ancestors (although fossil-hunters believe to have found 100s of orangutan ancestors or relatives).

5. "Then why  Neanderthal hunters evolved large brain?" They were no hunters: of course they butchered waterside carvasses, but tools have also traces of cattails, and their tooth plaque had traces of waterlilies. Their fossil are found in oxbow lakes, with beavers & reeds, or at coasts, from Doggerland to the Atlantic to the Medit.coasts. They had richer & more varied foods than agricultural humans (who needed longer growing periods (youth) to gather enough brain-specific nutrients such as DHA or iodine).

Hi Peter, you said: "The usual explanation for the lack of Gorilla and Chimp ancestor fossils is that they live in tropical wet forests and such forests have acid soils that are unfavorable for bone preservation." Yes, this is the usual "explanation", but is nonsense, of course: there are 100s of orangutan fossil relatives or ancestors: Sivapith, Lufengpith, Gigantopith, Khoratpith... Unscientific anthropocentrism. One of the reasons why PA is such a contentrious science. In fact, we don't lack African ape fossils: we have 100s of fossil relatives of Pan & Gorilla: most australopiths, as argued by many independent students (incl. myself, see my articles in Human Evolution).

Hi Barry, you said: "H.erectus was a meat eater and as such would have ranged further to obtain it..." This is a typical example of anthropocentrism. They were no meat-eaters, biological evidence shows they collected different sorts of waterside & shallow-aquatic foods (animal & plant) as they followed coasts & rivers. They even reached Flores, Sulawesi, Crete etc.! That they ranged further suggests they followed the coasts. As soon as the early pakicetids became littoral, they appeared worldwide, the same is true for early pinnipeds, and no doubt also for early-Pleistocene Homo. Omnivorous mammals often have rel.larger brains than carnivores. No carnivorous mammals have heavy skeletons like seen in H.erectus: erectus was much too slow & heavy to have been a hunter: biologically there's no doubt: pachyosteosclerosis as in H.erectus is exclusively seen in littoral animals: erectus simply followed the coasts (now mostly 100 m below sea-level), see attachment. There's not a shred of evidence (apart from wishful=anthropocentric thinking) that erectus were regular meat-eaters, although they of course butchered ungulates they found dronwned at the waterside (crossing rivers during the trek?) or which they (perhaps?) killed in shallow water, mud or reeds.

(1)  Human ancestors did not become bipedal by leaving the forest for the savanna. "Agreed, but various paleoanthropologists also agree." Yes, human locomotion evolved mosaic-like, IMO due to an aquarboreal to littoral to wading-walking lifestyle,  not due to cursorialism.

Appreciate that is your theory. To me any adaptationist theory is as good as any other.

(2)  H.erectus were no distance-runners. "Neutral myself on this one." Well, all cursorial tetrapods (bi- & quadrupeds, short & long runners) have atrophied outer digits & very long & strong middle digits (ostrich, kangaroo, horse etc.) but wading & swimming tetrapods have rel.broad & flat feet with all digits +-equally long or short (Homo, prenatal Pan, australopiths, naledi, penguin, duck, flamingo, grebe, water-possum).

Relatively flat feet is not necessarily a sign of a wading/swimming habit

(3)  They were no human ancestors to the exclusion of chimps & gorillas. "Disagree." Please see attachment, John: fossil-hunters believe to have found 100s if not 1000s of "human ancestors" but +-0 bonobo, chimp, lowland & highland gorilla ancestors. This is anthropocentric (pre-darwinian) thinking, and statistically impossible, unless there's an enormous bias in human ancestors to fossilize thousand times better than chimp or gorilla ancestors (although there are lots of orangutan fossil relatives: Siva-, Giganto-, Lufgeng- etc.pithecus). Fossil-hunters interpret every fossil humanlike trait (e.g. flat feet, short iliac bones) as derived, whereas these are often primitive-hominid: who doesn't want to discover a human rather than chimp ancestor?

If I get the gist of your argument correct, it is that fossils identified as hominid are really chimp and gorilla ancestors due to bias. Certainly always possible, but for now the evidence as it appears is what influences me. Fact is that there are virtually no uniquely derived features between humans and Chimps but at least 30 for humans and orangutans.

As for “who doesn't want to discover a human rather than chimp ancestor?” I do suspect that is an influencing factor for claims about Sahalanthropus purported to be a hominid, but I wonder if it is just another large bodied hominoid.

(4)  Homo did not evolve larger brains by eating meat. "Agreed – that’s a Lamarckian

argument." Yes, but my arguments are comparative: the rel.largest brains are seen in dolphins, seals & humans. Early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally along African& Eurasian coasts & rivers, where brain-specific nutrients are abundant: DHA, taurine, iodine & oligo-elements.

It is certainly possible that the global spread of human ancestors was coastal. If that were the case and food sources where high in brain-specific nutrients that certainly would presumably allow for any trend in brain development if they were a pre-requisite.

3. It is difficult for most animals to live in dry savannas; the same is true for Australopiths. Woodland Savannas with many water bodies is a requirement for them includung early Homo. But, not necessarily acqaborealism.

This relates to Donald Perry's arboreal theory of human origin - that australopiths and early Homo were primarily arboreal dwellers (including first shelters) and may have occupied gallery forest trees above streams and water holes where animals congregated to drink - and dropped large, sharpened stones on them.

Marc

Your observations are fascinating.  When do you think hominids became meat eaters?

If I may can I ask what you men by "wishful=anthropocentric thinking"?

Hi John, you say:

-"To me any adaptationist theory is as good as any other." No, only explanations based on comparative evidence are fool-proof, e.g. adaptations à la "sweating to cool in savannas" are falsified e.g. by the fact that savanna mammals conserve water & don't sweat much or at all, and by the fact that overheated furseals on land do sweat abundantly.

- "Relatively flat feet is not necessarily a sign of a wading/swimming habit." Well, it certainly contradicts the endurance running ideas. Is it "necessarily" a sign of swimming or/and wading, I don't know, but I don't know any exceptions, do you?

- "There are virtually no uniquely derived features between humans and Chimps but at least 30 for humans and orangutans." These are the ideas of Jeffrey Schwartz, but Schwartz used a lot of primitive-hominoid traits instead of derived Homo-Pongo traits. Pan & Homo split shortly after Pan-Homo & Gorilla split, and afterwards Pan & Gorilla evolved a lot of traits in parallel (knuckle-walking, longer anterior dentition, thinner enamel, longer ilia, more handlike feet, longer arms & hands etc.). The hominid LCA (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) was probably rather bonobo-like & rel.upright (vertical spine), but with broader body & pelvis, somewhat shorter arms, thicker enamel etc. (see my Hum.Evol.papers in attachment of a previous post).

- “Who doesn't want to discover a human rather than chimp ancestor?” Not only Sahelanthr., but also Piltdown man, Ramapithecus, Lucy, Taung, Naledi etc.etc. S.Afr.paleo-anthropologists believe S.Africa was our cradle, E.Afr.PAs think the Rift was our cradle...

- "It is certainly possible that the global spread of human ancestors was coastal. If that were the case and food sources where high in brain-specific nutrients that certainly would presumably allow for any trend in brain development if they were a pre-requisite." Yes, we know that early-Pleistocene erectus-like Homo 1.8 Ma had reched Aïn-Hanech (coastal plain), Dmanisi (near the Black-Casp.Seaa connection then), Turkana (where they appeared together with stingrays = marine connection) & Mojokerto (amid barnacles & shellfish): coastal dispersal is a fact.

Hi Barry, you ask:

- "When do you think hominids became meat-eaters?" Possibly since >5 Ma (Homo/Pan split): chimps hunt colobus monkeys. Our waterside relatives & ancestors (>2 Ma?) presumably butchered carcasses of ungulates they found drowned (during the trek?) or perhaps they trapped in mud, reed or shallow water, but "endurance-running" is a very recent innovation only seen in a very few remote inland populations of E.Africa & perhaps Australia. Ancient Africans (e.g. KhoiSan) & Australian aboriginals preferred to live at the coasts & rivers, but where driven inland, replaced by Bantus & Europeans. See maps of population densities: coasts & rivers are densely populated, but savannas, deserts, mountains, poles & even tropical forests are much less densely populated.

- "What you mean by wishful=anthropocentric thinking?" e.g. the endur.running idea: because there are few populations today that sometimes run after antelopes, some researchers believe that our ancestors 2 Ma must have done that. This is irrealistic nonsense, anatomically & physiologically impossible, e.g. humans running in savannas have to drink almost 10 litres/day, we sweat water+salt (both scarce in savannas) etc. PA is such a contentious science because many PAs still take for granted such anthropocentrisms ("ape->human = forest->plain = quadru->bipedal").

Hi John, you said: "Donald Perry's arboreal theory of human origin: australopiths and early Homo were primarily arboreal dwellers (including first shelters) and may have occupied gallery forest trees above streams and water holes where animals congregated to drink - and dropped large, sharpened stones on them."  This is an example of anthropocentric=wishful thinking IMO: it's not because some humans today might be hunting that way that our ancestors 2 Ma must have done that. Many australopiths had curved hand-bones (= vertical climbing), and they always found in wetlands (Reed 1997 JHE), but not so H.erectus cs, who did not or rarely climb (e.g. much too heavy), IOW, Perry is wrong in this. Too often australopiths & H.erectus are taken together: but they were very different creatures, who had nothing to do with each other IMO.

“No, only explanations based on comparative evidence are fool-proof,”

Sure, one might argue that one adapatationist explanation is better than another, but they are all based on the premise of a particular correlation between a particular anatomy/physiology etc and a particular environment or ecology. In that respect they are all as good as each other.

“Is it "necessarily" a sign of swimming or/and wading, I don't know, but I don't know any exceptions, do you?”

I don’t know either.

- "There are virtually no uniquely derived features between humans and Chimps but at least 30 for humans and orangutans." These are the ideas of Jeffrey Schwartz, but Schwartz used a lot of primitive-hominoid traits instead of derived Homo-Pongo traits.”

No he did not.

“ Pan & Homo split shortly after Pan-Homo & Gorilla split, and afterwards Pan & Gorilla evolved a lot of traits in parallel (knuckle-walking, longer anterior dentition, thinner enamel, longer ilia, more handlike feet, longer arms & hands etc.). The hominid LCA (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) was probably rather bonobo-like & rel.upright (vertical spine), but with broader body & pelvis, somewhat shorter arms, thicker enamel etc. (see my Hum.Evol.papers in attachment of a previous post).”

That’s the story.  Not supported by morphological cladistics.

- " coastal dispersal is a fact.”

Maybe it is. No problem with that.

Hi John, you said: "Donald Perry's arboreal theory of human origin: ......This is an example of anthropocentric=wishful thinking IMO: it's not because some humans today might be hunting that way that our ancestors 2 Ma must have done that.

Maybe ‘wishful thinking’ can be be applied to any adaptationist theory.

“Many australopiths had curved hand-bones (= vertical climbing), and they always found in wetlands (Reed 1997 JHE), but not so H.erectus cs, who did not or rarely climb (e.g. much too heavy), IOW, Perry is wrong in this.”

How does one know that H. erectus did not or rarely climb? How does one know it was 'too heavy'?

“Too often australopiths & H.erectus are taken together: but they were very different creatures, who had nothing to do with each other IMO.”

Point here being?

Cheers, John

John said:

- “...only explanations based on comparative evidence are fool-proof,” sure, one might argue that one adapatationist explanation is better than another, but they are all based on the premise of a particular correlation between a particular anatomy/physiology etc and a particular environment or ecology. In that respect they are all as good as each other.

No, some correlations are clear, e.g. all fat + furless mammals spend a lot of time in water (humans are no exception: when we go for a swim we take off our clothes). Or: olfactory reduction is never seen in savanna mammals, but is typical for (semi)aquatic mammals. Etc.

- "There are virtually no uniquely derived features between humans and Chimps but at least 30 for humans and orangutans" are the ideas of Jeffrey Schwartz, but Schwartz used a lot of primitive-hominoid traits instead of derived Homo-Pongo traits”, no he did not.

He did, John, it's years ago that I read his books & I have no time to reread hem (although very interesting), but take e.g. thick enamel: most mid-Miocene hominoid fossils had thick enamel: this is no indication of close relationship Homo-Pongo as Schwartz asserts.

- “Pan & Homo split shortly after Pan-Homo & Gorilla split, and afterwards Pan & Gorilla evolved a lot of traits in parallel (knuckle-walking, longer anterior dentition, thinner enamel, longer ilia, more handlike feet, longer arms & hands etc.). The hominid LCA (Gorilla-Homo-Pan) was probably rather bonobo-like & rel.upright (vertical spine), but with broader body & pelvis, somewhat shorter arms, thicker enamel etc. (see my Hum.Evol.papers in attachment of a previous post)”, that’s the story. Not supported by morphological cladistics.

Apparently, you haven't read my Hum.Evol.papers, John, esp.1994 & 1996, e.g. 1994 "Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?" Hum.Evol.9:121-139 concluded from ontogenetic & morphological evidence: "... the LCA of Homo & Pan 8-4 Ma was a partially bipedal, gracile australopith with chiefly a mosaic of human & chimpanzee (esp.bonobo) features: low sexual dimorphism, minimal prognathism, slightly enlarged canines, non-protruding nasal skeleton, smooth ectocranium without crests, “small” brain with ape-like sulcal pattern, relatively non-flexed basicranium, intermediate position of foramen magnum, “short” forelimbs (short=humanlike) without knuckle-walking features, low ilia, (very) long femoral necks, “short” legs (short=apelike), (very) valgus knees, full plantigrady, longer and not very abductable halluces."  This is still correct AFAICS.

- "coastal dispersal is a fact”, maybe it is. No problem with that.   

:-)  I meant of course the early-Pleistocene dispersals of erectus-like populations.

- “Many australopiths had curved hand-bones (= vertical climbing), and they always found in wetlands (Reed 1997 JHE), but not so H.erectus cs, who did not or rarely climb (e.g. much too heavy), IOW, Perry is wrong in this.” How does one know that H. erectus did not or rarely climb? How does one know it was 'too heavy'?

Very simple & obvious, e.g. pachyosteosclerosis is *extremely* heavy, it's invariably seen in littoral animals, never in arboreal nor cursorial animals, see attachment.

- “Too often australopiths & H.erectus are taken together: but they were very different creatures, who had nothing to do with each other IMO.” Point here being?  

As long as PAs keep throwing everything together (australopiths=erectus) without making finer distinctions, they're no going to understand ape nor human evolution. 

"humans are no exception: when we go for a swim we take off our clothes"

That is usually to maintain buoyancy and reduce drag.  It is also not always the case, when swimming in very cold water we wear wetsuits or dry suits to maintain body temperature.  We do not have sufficient body fat, nor is it distributed as in aquatic animals in such a way as to prevent hypothermia. 

Water is not the natural environment for humans, we are able to survive limited periods in water but rarely at the temperature much of Earth's open water is found at.  Even if the water temperature is warm prolonged exposure would damage our skin which is not evolved for prolonged submersion. 

The evolution of human intellect has made it possible to populate otherwise uninhabitable parts of our planet.  That is why human populations have outstripped those of apes.  Our adapatbility through intelligence is our greatest asset and it far exceeds the advantages of size or speed.  Our Hominid ancestors did not need to be bigger than their prey or to run faster than it.  They outsmarted it, we and many of our ancestors can manufacture and accurately throw missiles.  Humans perfected the ambush.  The combination of those factors gave 'us' the edge, when we made effective clothes and shelter we had it made. 

Our biology shows that human ancestors were not only semi-aquatic but also (sub)tropical. In spite of our post-aquatic re-terrestrialisation, our SC fat is still perfectly distributed to maintain body Tp in (sub)tropical waters, see attachment. Most of us no longer spend much time in water, but our anatomy & physiology show that "man was more aquatic in the past" (title of Hardy's paper in NS 1960). And of course, prolonged immersion does *not* damage our skin, see e.g. Sea Gypsies & Ama divers.

Barry, you'd better ask why we have such a large brain ("intellect"): humans, pinnipeds & odontocetes have rel.the largest brains (EQ). That H.erectus cs were endurance-runners is an anthropocentric fantasy, based on wishful thinking (Bramble & Lieberman didn't even *consider* the possibility of wading or swimming: it's a shame that Nature published this unscientific paper):

"The nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains ("endurance running", "dogged pursuit of swifter animals", "born to run", "le singe coureur", "Savannahstan") are among the worst scientific hypotheses ever proposed. The surprising frequency and diversity of foot problems (e.g. hammertoes, hallux valgus & bunions, ingrown nails, heelspurs, athlete’s feet, corns & calluses, some of these due to wearing shoes) & the habit to protect our feet with shoes prove that human feet are not made in the first place for running. Humans are physiologically ill-adapted to dry open milieus: "We have a water- & sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, unfit for a dry environment. Our maximal urine concentration is too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal. We need more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time" (Verhaegen 1987 Nature 325:305-6). This does not imply to say that human ancestors or relatives never lived on savannas, only that if they did, it was at the wetlands & rivers there. Apparently we evolved running (only lately, and only about half as fast as equids, bovids, felids or canids, and even slower than arboreal primates) *in spite of* our broad build, short toes & plantigrade feet, profuse sweating & large SC fat tissues (a burden of >10 kg in most people). Of course, healthy adult men can sometimes outrun ungulates (the usual "argument" of conventional PAs) and provide a limited part of the calories for the group, but this "dogged pursuit" is largely confined to a few inland populations in East Africa today, is derived & probably very recent (less than a few thousands of years), and it requires a rather specialized technology with water bags, weapons & poisons. Quadrupedal chimps can hunt colobus monkeys, and even eat them raw, but H.erectus with their heavy bones (POS), very broad pelves & valgus knees, shorter legs & flat feet were much too slow on land. Humans have a remarkably poor olfaction (Gilad cs 2003) & low muscularity, which make regular scavenging & a fortiori hunting unlikely" (after google "unproven assumptions so-called aquatic ape hypothesis").

“No, some correlations are clear, e.g. all fat + furless mammals spend a lot of time in water (humans are no exception: when we go for a swim we take off our clothes).”

I do not get the impression that through much of human history that humans spent a lot of time in water.

“Or: olfactory reduction is never seen in savanna mammals, but is typical for (semi)aquatic mammals. Etc.”

Your argument is that if certain features are found in organisms with a certain behavior then those that have the feature but do not have that behavior must have had it in the past.

,”but Schwartz used a lot of primitive-hominoid traits instead of derived Homo-Pongo traits”

Sure, if you can substantiate ‘a lot’ I am very open to that.

“but take e.g. thick enamel: most mid-Miocene hominoid fossils had thick enamel: this is no indication of close relationship Homo-Pongo as Schwartz asserts.”

It just means that thick (molar) enamel could denote a larger clade of relationship involving humans and orangutans, but still one that does not include the Pan-Gorilla taxa.

So I look forward to your refutation of a ‘lot’ of the proposed characters such as receded hairline, well developed beard and mustache, anterior orientation of cranial hair, unique external ear configuration, lower posterior deciduous molar trigonid shortest, lower anterior deciduous molar protoconid anteriorly placed, ischial callosities unkerotinized or absent, smile with closed lips et.

“Apparently, you haven't read my Hum.Evol.papers, John, esp.1994 & 1996, e.g. 1994 "Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?" Hum.Evol.9:121-139 concluded from ontogenetic & morphological evidence: "...

Yes I did. I can look again, but my recollection was that there was no presentation of derived features relative to a good outgroup sampling (lesser apes and monkeys). Of the features listed, non protruding nasal skeleton for example, does not demonstrate a closer relationship between humans and African apes as the feature also applies to various other apes and monkeys. Since knuckle walking features occur in African apes the absence of those features does not support a Human-African ape clade.

“Very simple & obvious, e.g. pachyosteosclerosis is *extremely* heavy, it's invariably seen in littoral animals, never in arboreal nor cursorial animals, see attachment.”

I see, your argument. Could be applicable, but does not exclude the possibility that erectus was able and did climb trees.

As long as PAs keep throwing everything together (australopiths=erectus) without making finer distinctions, they're no going to understand ape nor human evolution. 

Agreed, phylogeny is critical. I was not aware that PAs did not consider phylogenetic relationships.

“Our biology shows that human ancestors were not only semi-aquatic but also (sub)tropical. “

I would contend that it does not. Just because an organism has features that make certain behaviors possible does not mean that those behaviors were responsible.

“ our anatomy & physiology show that "man was more aquatic in the past"

That is the inference, but it’s just one inference based on selection based causes.

“Barry, you'd better ask why we have such a large brain ("intellect"): humans, pinnipeds & odontocetes have rel.the largest brains (EQ). “

What I see in this question is the idea that there has to be a purpose to having a feture and that purpose is some kind of accomplishment that is met by getting what is needed. It is pure teleology – the effect is the cause.

". The surprising frequency and diversity of foot problems …. the habit to protect our feet with shoes prove that human feet are not made in the first place for running. “

Teleology again. And the idea that origins are adaptive and therefore efficient.

“Humans are physiologically ill-adapted to dry open milieus:”

Perhaps so, but what counts is what was possible or not in particular past environments according to the circumstance of those environments

“ but H.erectus with their heavy bones (POS), very broad pelves & valgus knees, shorter legs & flat feet were much too slow on land.”

Much too slow to do what?

I am unsure why the issue of long distance/endurance running in H.Erectus is being considered here.  Few animals engage in extended bouts of physical activity and there is no reason why H.Erectus would have needed to.  Modern humans are in many cases capable of long distance endurance running but far from all.  In the main this appears to be conducted for entertainment rather than evolutionary necessity.  Since endurance running leaves the participant exhausted and exhaustion would leave a prey animal dangerously exposed an evolutionary trait that caused such would be unlikely. 

Homo Sapien Sapien and Homo Neanderthalis would not have needed to outrun prey in the way big cats do for instances.  Even they rarely run for long distances which is why many prey animals can out run them.

For most of hominid evolution they would have been slower, weaker and smaller than animals that preyed upon them.  They were also in many cases slower and weaker than their own prey animals.  

I am unfamilar with what Marc refers to as the "nowadays popular ideas about Pleistocene human ancestors running in open plains"  None of the texts I have read recently suggests this at all, most in fact state that prolonged periods on the savannah would have been unlikely, in the main because water is scare there and fast moving predators are common.  Even a modern endurance runner would not be able to outpace a big cat.  

Modern humans are however, working in groups able to scare off even packs of lions more numerical than they are.  I recently watched a documentary where three nomadic hunter gatherers confronted more than six lions in order to steal their kill.  This action far from being suicidal as we would imagined worked.  The shouting and waving of sticks and spears by three men advancing upon them seemed to frighten or confuse the lions and cause them to retreat.

It is reasonable to imagine that early humans would have been able to develop similar strategies and a pack of hominids making loud threatening gestures could quite possibly have frightened off much more dangerous animals.  Few animals risk injury over food and often retreat when challenged.  Hyenas chase off lions too.

Neither of these practices requires long distance or endurance running. 

Hi John,

-“No, some correlations are clear, e.g. all fat + furless mammals spend a lot of time in water (humans are no exception: when we go for a swim we take off our clothes).” I do not get the impression that through much of human history that humans spent a lot of time in water.

Yes, humans are mostly terrestrial today, but our "scars of evolution" that are maladaptive to a terrestrial life (obesity, slow speed, sweat water + salt, poor olfaction, external nose, low muscularity, poor renal concentration, high water needs, low body Tp, fur loss etc.etc.) leave no doubt that until not very long ago (according to loss of pachyosteosclerosis perhaps only about 200 ka) human ancestors spent a lot of time in the water, parttime diving. Neandertals still parttime dived for waterlily roots (traces in dental plaque), H.erectus (GBY) dived for waternut, neandertals had traces of cattails on their tools, at Gibraltar they butchered marine mammals & ate shellfish, H.erectus >500 ka made engraving on shells (Joordens cs Nature) etc. Only our prejudices e.g. popular illustrations of erectus (or even australopiths!) running after antelopes make us blind for the biological evidence: Homo was not adapted to the savanna, but to the waterside.

- “Or: olfactory reduction is never seen in savanna mammals, but is typical for (semi)aquatic mammals. Etc.” Your argument is that if certain features are found in organisms with a certain behavior then those that have the feature but do not have that behavior must have had it in the past.

Not "must". It's "combination" of numerous features that are not seen in chimps, other primates, savanna mammals etc., but are abundant in (semi)aquatic mammals that shows our ex-semi-aquatic past. In humans today still e.g. fur loss etc.(see above) + in H.erectus e.g. pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy, platyspondyly, fast intercontinental dispersal, island colonisation, fossils invariably found next to edible shellfish (Munro 2010) etc. There's no doubt that H.erectus (or at least their immediate ancestors) simply followed the coasts (& from there inland along rivers): biologically these creatures were littoral. Of course, when they found ungulate carcasses they butchered what was left on the bones (they were durophagous: they had littoral foods, e.g. cf stone tool use of sea-otters), but that doesn't mean they ran after ungulates!

-”but Schwartz used a lot of primitive-hominoid traits instead of derived Homo-Pongo traits” Sure, if you can substantiate ‘a lot’ I am very open to that.

One can always find common features to illustrate "derived" traits, IMO, none of Schwartz's "derived" features is derived. In fact, DNA says enough: our nearest relative is Pan, then Gorilla, then Pongo, then hylobatids.

-“but take e.g. thick enamel: most mid-Miocene hominoid fossils had thick enamel: this is no indication of close relationship Homo-Pongo as Schwartz asserts.” It just means that thick (molar) enamel could denote a larger clade of relationship involving humans and orangutans, but still one that does not include the Pan-Gorilla taxa.

Thicker & thinner enamel evolve repeatedly: it's no sign of common descent, it's an adaptation to what they eat (parallel evolution). The hominid-pongid LCA had very likely thick enamel (as seen in most if not all mid-Miocene fossils).

-So I look forward to your refutation of a ‘lot’ of the proposed characters such as receded hairline, well developed beard and mustache, anterior orientation of cranial hair, unique external ear configuration, lower posterior deciduous molar trigonid shortest, lower anterior deciduous molar protoconid anteriorly placed, ischial callosities unkeratinized or absent, smile with closed lips etc.

I don't know the dental details, but premolars of Homo & Pan are indistinguishible. Ischial callosities: of course: orangs are more arboreal. Smile with closed lips? Schwartz is very selective in his argument. Hair-line, beards etc see chimps, macaques, uakaris, callithricids etc.etc. If one has to refer to such extremely subjective "arguments" it only shows he's wrong.

-“Apparently, you haven't read my Hum.Evol.papers, John, esp.1994 & 1996, e.g. 1994 "Australopithecines: Ancestors of the African Apes?" Hum.Evol.9:121-139 concluded from ontogenetic & morphological evidence:..."  Yes I did. I can look again, but my recollection was that there was no presentation of derived features relative to a good outgroup sampling (lesser apes and monkeys). Of the features listed, non protruding nasal skeleton for example, does not demonstrate a closer relationship between humans and African apes as the feature also applies to various other apes and monkeys. Since knuckle walking features occur in African apes the absence of those features does not support a Human-African ape clade.

Pan & Gorilla KWing are different anatomically & ontogenetically, it's now generally agreed (what I said >20 yrs ago) that they evolved in parallel. The probelm with many cladistic studies is that they (anthropocentrically) take for granted that australopith & hmans form 1 (derived) group, and that apes are primitive (chimp=outgroup). If one uses an objective (non-anthropocentric) approach (a non-rooted tree, see my 1996 Hum.Evol.paper), E.African australopiths resemble Gorilla more than Pan, and S.Afr.apiths Pan>Gorilla (although Pan resembles G most, and apiths resemble each other): this suggests // evolution: afar./aethiop./boisei cf Gorilla // africanus/robustus cf Pan. Humanlike features in apith are not-derived-human, but are primitive-hominid. IOW, all living hominids (Pan, Homo & Gorilla) had apith-like ancestors, but Homo OT1H and Pan & Gorilla in parallel OTOH evolved in different directions, e.g. Homo got larger brains, smaller mouth etc., G & P got longer iliac bones, larger anterior dentition (common chimp more than bonobo), P got longer arms etc.

-“Very simple & obvious, e.g. pachyosteosclerosis is *extremely* heavy, it's invariably seen in littoral animals, never in arboreal nor cursorial animals, see attachment.”

I see, your argument. Could be applicable, but does not exclude the possibility that erectus was able and did climb trees.

H.erectus might rarely still have climbed trees, but generally they were much too heavy & slow: biologically they were littoral animals, and this indeed best explains their intercontinental dispersal, island colonisation, finds amid shellfish & even barnacles (Mojokerto), brain enlargement etc.

-"As long as PAs keep throwing everything together (australopiths=erectus) without making finer distinctions, they're no going to understand ape nor human evolution." Agreed, phylogeny is critical. I was not aware that PAs did not consider phylogenetic relationships.

Apiths & erectus were very different creatures (although +-closely related): IMO apiths=aquarboreal, erectus=littoral. The different habilis fossils were probably not very far from the H/P split, some of them were quite apelike (e.g. very long arms of O.H.62).

Hi John,

-“Our biology shows that human ancestors were not only semi-aquatic but also (sub)tropical.“ I would contend that it does not. Just because an organism has features that make certain behaviors possible does not mean that those behaviors were responsible.

That is just-so thinking: explain upright posture by having to minimize solar radiation, nakedness to sweat better, etc. We can "explain" everything. But the comparative evidence is fool-proof. The combination of fur loss, SC fat, poor olfaction, small mouth, large brain, external nose, abundant salt-water sweating, fast intercontinental diaspora, island colonisation, pachyosteosclerosis etc lreaves no doubt: erectus was littoral, feeding partly on littoral foods, see attachment.

-“ our anatomy & physiology show that "man was more aquatic in the past" That is the inference, but it’s just one inference based on selection based causes.

Nothing selective: *all* evidence *independently* points into the same direction: H.erectus = littoral past, see e.g. attachment.

-“Barry, you'd better ask why we have such a large brain ("intellect"): humans, pinnipeds & odontocetes have rel.the largest brains (EQ).“ What I see in this question is the idea that there has to be a purpose to having a feture and that purpose is some kind of accomplishment that is met by getting what is needed. It is pure teleology – the effect is the cause.

? I don't understand: teleology = not darwinian. No: evolution = selection.

".The surprising frequency and diversity of foot problems …. the habit to protect our feet with shoes prove that human feet are not made in the first place for running.“ Teleology again. And the idea that origins are adaptive and therefore efficient.

Are you a creationist, John? Darwin: what is not adapted is selected out. The fact that we use shoes to protect our feet suggests that they're no well adapted to our present lifestyle. Shoes were a hindrance in our waterside past.

-“Humans are physiologically ill-adapted to dry open milieus:” Perhaps so, but what counts is what was possible or not in particular past environments according to the circumstance of those environments.

H.erectus was impossible in dry savanna, see attachment. Even sapiens still prefers to live elsewhere, see maps of human population densities.

-“but H.erectus with their heavy bones (POS), very broad pelves & valgus knees, shorter legs & flat feet were much too slow on land.” Much too slow to do what?

To run frequently. They had shorter tibias than sapiens, broader bodies & pelves, more valgus knees, much heavier skeletons. Cursorial animals are slenderly built, have the limbs as nearly to the midline as possible, are digiti- or even unguligrade etc. Humans are more plantigrade than chimps: if we had evolved from forest to savanna we had been less plantigrade ("baboon paradox").

Hi Barry, if we forget the traditional PA preassumptions ("ape->human = forest->plain") but consider human & H.erectus features just like all other mammals (non-anthropocentrically), the biology is clear: there's not the slightest evidence we ever were dry savanna dwellers (except from a very few recent sapiens populations) and as you say, we were certainly were no endurance-runners (which *is* a very popular idea among PAs today). H.erectus was in all instances a typical littoral animal (incl. frequent shallow-water diving for sessile foods). H.sapiens has lost or reduced these littoral adaptations (pachyosteosclerosis, long low flat skulls, very broad bodies etc.) but we still have (or only slightly reduced) the huge brains, full plantigrady, fat bodies, poor olfaction etc. = the scars of our evolution (relics). Dart's whole savanna idea (+ lions etc) is anthropocentric imagination (impossible, unscientific, unnecessary imagination), it has no place in human or ape evolution, google "original econiche Homo".

John

If anthing was ever a 'fact' in science we might as well shut up shop.  The "frequent fixation"  on having the absolute truth is not a fixation it is a form of OCD.

One of the great things about evolution is that we will never, and I mean never know any absolute truths.  We can have some really close guesses but that's it.  Possibilities, probabilities, likelihood's and maybes in any case make for far more interesting science than certainties.  If we ever find those all that is left is dying.

If scientists and for that matter non-scientists ever stop disagreeing they will stop doing science.  Science is the search for the truth, not the finding of it

Marc

Do you think that early man engaged in anthropocentric imagination?  Some of the art suggests so.

“Yes, humans are mostly terrestrial today, but our "scars of evolution" that are maladaptive to a terrestrial life (obesity, slow speed, sweat water + salt, poor olfaction, external nose, low muscularity, poor renal concentration, high water needs, low body Tp, fur loss etc.etc.) “

Saying its ‘maladaptive’ is not very informative. Features were sufficient and that is all that is necessary for survival. No intrinsic requirement for anything more.

“leave no doubt that until not very long ago (according to loss of pachyosteosclerosis perhaps only about 200 ka) human ancestors spent a lot of time in the water, part-time diving. “

That’s your inference, I agree.

“Neandertals still parttime dived for waterlily roots (traces in dental plaque),

OK, maybe they dived for waterlily roots among other things. Humans can do that, so why mot neandertals. Sure H. erectus may have dived for waternut just as we can. Etc. No problem with that. Yeah, it would be a stretch to imagine erectus or australopiths running after antelopes.

“Homo was not adapted to the savanna, but to the “waterside.”

Here’s where it gets tricky – ‘waterside’ Certainly seems that if modern humans can live by the ‘wterside’ so too could earlier ancestors, just as modern humans could live in the savanna perhaps to so did some ancestors – as long as requirements of survival could be met.

“Not "must". It's "combination" of numerous features that are not seen in chimps, other primates, savanna mammals etc., but are abundant in (semi)aquatic mammals that shows our ex-semi-aquatic past.

I understand that is your inference, but it is still just an inference.

“ There's no doubt that H.erectus (or at least their immediate ancestors) simply followed the coasts (& from there inland along rivers): biologically these creatures were littoral.”

Sure a possibility. Also possible that they build boats.

“ Of course, when they found ungulate carcasses they butchered what was left on the bones (they were durophagous: they had littoral foods, e.g. cf stone tool use of sea-otters), but that doesn't mean they ran after ungulates!”

Agreed. As Perry theorized, maybe they dropped stones on them.

-”but Schwartz used a lot of primitive-hominoid traits instead of derived Homo-Pongo traits” Sure, if you can substantiate ‘a lot’ I am very open to that.

“One can always find common features to illustrate "derived" traits, IMO, none of Schwartz's "derived" features is derived. In fact, DNA says enough: our nearest relative is Pan, then Gorilla, then Pongo, then hylobatids.”

Ah – so you soley rest your case on the DNA sequence similarity argument, that similarity of DNA sequences (which are created through algorithms rather than existing in nature) negates any other form of evidence. Happen to disagree on that one.

 “Thicker & thinner enamel evolve repeatedly: it's no sign of common descent, it's an adaptation to what they eat (parallel evolution). “

Well, I understand that is your opinion.

“The hominid-pongid LCA had very likely thick enamel (as seen in most if not all mid-Miocene fossils).”

Again, only if you accept the molecular phylogeny as the final truth

-So I look forward to your refutation of a ‘lot’ of the proposed characters such as receded hairline, well developed beard and mustache, anterior orientation of cranial hair, unique external ear configuration, lower posterior deciduous molar trigonid shortest, lower anterior deciduous molar protoconid anteriorly placed, ischial callosities unkeratinized or absent, smile with closed lips etc.

I don't know the dental details, but premolars of Homo & Pan are indistinguishible. I

Deciduous premolars apparently not.

schial callosities: of course: orangs are more arboreal.

One could say it means nothing.

“ Smile with closed lips? Schwartz is very selective in his argument.”

So far I have seen no evidence of smiling with closed lips in other apes or monkeys (other than one instance I can think of).

Hair-line, beards etc see chimps, macaques, uakaris, callithricids etc.etc. I

Chimps do not have a receded hair line other than when they go bald. Beards and mustaches of various kinds do occur in various monkeys but the combination of a well developed beard and mustache is absent.

“ one has to refer to such extremely subjective "arguments" it only shows he's wrong.”

You have just shown that these features are not subjective. Each can be individually tested for their existence and derived status.

“Pan & Gorilla KWing are different anatomically & ontogenetically, it's now generally agreed (what I said >20 yrs ago) that they evolved in parallel.”

Some a have made the argument that because these shared features are not identical  they must have evolved in parallel rather than diverge.

“The probelm with many cladistic studies is that they (anthropocentrically) take for granted that australopith & hmans form 1 (derived) group, and that apes are primitive (chimp=outgroup)”.

This is not the case in Schwartz’s study

“If one uses an objective (non-anthropocentric) approach (a non-rooted tree, see my 1996 Hum.Evol.paper), “

From a cladistic approach one needs an outgroup to polarize characters.

“E.African australopiths resemble Gorilla more than Pan”

But not in shared derived characters such as posteriorly thickened upper palate. Resemblance itself is not a necessary indicator or relationship.

“ Humanlike features in apith are not-derived-human, but are primitive-hominid.”

Not the cladistically derived hominid characters.

But none of this matters if one takes the view that molecular similarity is the decider, in which case fossil resemblance is meaningless since it has no molecular corroboration.

“H.erectus might rarely still have climbed trees, but generally they were much too heavy & slow: biologically they were littoral animals, and this indeed best explains their intercontinental dispersal, island colonisation, finds amid shellfish & even barnacles (Mojokerto), brain enlargement etc.”

Agree that this is your view.

-"As long as PAs keep throwing everything together (australopiths=erectus) without making finer distinctions,

Curious to know the phylogeneticists who equate australopiths with erectus. Never came across that in my studies.

Cheers, John

Hi John, when I said "apiths=erectus", this was in a hurry, I didn't mean that some PAs believe apiths & erectus were identical, of course, only that many PAs assume that both apiths & erectus were bipedal open plain dwellers. That's biologically incorrect: we know that apiths lived in wetlands (e.g. K.Reed 1997 JHE 32:289-322), and that erectus lived in very different milieus: they followed the coasts, e.g. from Aïn-Hanech to Mojokerto. (Reed showed Pliocene australopiths "existed in fairly wooded, well-watered regions” & Pleistocene robust australopiths “in similar environs and also in more open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands”.)

Sorry I have no time to repeat my arguments (mostly from comparative biology), you can find them in my publications (in a nutshell, see attachment), only a few comments. You say:

-“Yes, humans are mostly terrestrial today, but our "scars of evolution" that are maladaptive to a terrestrial life (obesity, slow speed, sweat water + salt, poor olfaction, external nose, low muscularity, poor renal concentration, high water needs, low body Tp, fur loss etc.etc.)“  Saying its ‘maladaptive’ is not very informative...

In some cases it is, e.g. there are no savanna mammals without keen olfaction. The human olfactory bulb is about 45 % from the chimp's. We can't explain this by going from forest to plain, but simply by H.erectus following the coasts, for which there are unnumerable other indications: appearance of external nose, ear-exostoses, intercontinental dispersal, fossil always near edible shellfish, platycephaly, pachyosteosclerosis etc. The general picture is clear (not all details, of course): H.erectus cs spread as far as Mojokerto (where their fossils lay amid shells & barnacles), simply following the Indian Ocean & other coasts (with rich aquatic resources, full of brain-specific nutrients: taurine, DHA, iodine etc.): that was erectus' habitat, not the open plain. They were waders & divers, not runners: all pachyostotic animals are littoral, and erectus was no exception. Such thick bones are very brittle (e.g. cf osteopetrosis disease in humans). H.erectus was pachyosteosclerotic, we lost this feature (except rare diseases), IOW, sapiens mostly abandoned diving. These are no my "inferences" as you believe, these are facts which can't be denied.

-... Also possible that they build boats. 

No, archeologically they didn't build boats 2 or 1 Ma, that's another anthropocentrism. Besides, boats were unnecessary & even incompatible with erectus' lifestyle: erectus' features are typically seen in littoral animals. However, building dugouts or reed boasts might explain why, much later, sapiens lost pachyosteosclerosis (c 200 ka in the fossil record: Omo & Herto in Africa).

-“The hominid-pongid LCA had very likely thick enamel (as seen in most if not all mid-Miocene fossils).” Again, only if you accept the molecular phylogeny as the final truth.

DNA differences between Homo & Pan are about 3 times less than between Homo & Pongo, between Homo & Gorilla about 2 times less. Many of the resemblances between Pongo & Homo described by Schwartz are either primitive leftovers (e.g. thick enamel), or else convergences (e.g. beards etc.), but no signs of common descent Homo-Pongo vs Pan.

-“H.erectus might rarely still have climbed trees, but generally they were much too heavy & slow: biologically they were littoral animals, and this indeed best explains their intercontinental dispersal, island colonisation, finds amid shellfish & even barnacles (Mojokerto), brain enlargement etc.”   Agree that this is your view.

No, that's a fact: Mojokerto was found amid barnacles & shells, and AFAIWK *all* erectus fossils lay next to edible shellfish (e.g. S.Munro 2010 "Molluscs as Ecological Indicators in Palaeoanthropological Contexts" PhD thesis Austr.Natl.Univ.Canberra), the problem is that traditional PAs anthropocentrically "forget" this & all other indications that erectus were littoral, not cursorial creatures. Many PAs assume that erectus were "bipedal" for dwelling over open plains, but they're blind to the obvious: erectus were bipedal for beach-combing or so, where their fossils lay, and where they easily collected shellfish (proven in archeological collections, e.g. engravings) & possibly (difficult or impossible to show) crayfish & seaweeds. Of course Pleistocene Homo butchered carcasses they found at the waterside, not only of ungulates (which leave abundant archeol.traces of stones & bones) but also of whales etc., e.g. M.Gutierrez cs 2001 "Exploitation d’un grand cétacé au Paléolithique ancien: Le site de Dungo V à Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola)" CRAS 332:357-362.

Hi Barry, you asked "Do you think that early man engaged in anthropocentric imagination? Some of the art suggests so."

Yes, I think cave art (like most art?) was anthropocentric.

But art is no science. Anthropocentrism is a logical mistake in science, e.g. it tries to explain ancient lifestyles by present-day lifestyles, e.g. a few extant populations in E.Africa sometimes hunt by running antelopes at exhaustion: anthropocentricsm believes that long ago H.erectus also must have done that.

Marc

The paintings showing humans running with antelopes are very much later than H.Erectus and depict modern humans.  It is to be noted that they show them armed with missiles and the purpose of the running was probably to facilitate the throwing of the missile rather than actually catching the animal.

I am convinced that H.Erectus do not run long distances too.  The creature had not perfected the manufacture of missiles so it would not have been able to hunt antelopes. If they at antelopes at all they would have been severely injured ones they could stalk or carrion killed by other predators.

Art and science are both examples of abstract thought possessed by humans. It is possible that even Australopithecines were capable of this.  The Makapansgat pebble has the naturally formed impression of a face on it.  It was found close to Australopithecene remains and a long way from where it originated indicating it had been carried.

This is not proof that the creature thought in an abstract fashion but is tantalisingly close.   

Yes, Barry, IMO PAs often underestimate the thinking ("cognitive") skills of early ancestors & even of non-human creatures, even without large brains, e.g. Can Kabadayi & Mathias Osvath (2017 "Ravens parallel great apes in flexible planning for tool-use and bartering" Science 357:202-4) show "ravens plan for events unrelated to caching (tool-use & bartering) with delays of up to 17 hrs, exert self-control, and consider temporal distance to future events." Smart birds, even surpassing grat apes!

And yes, if erectus or relatives ate antelopes, I think it were often animals drowned crossing rivers (about 10 % of them die during the trek) or carcasses left by carnivores (with few meat left probably). IIRC, often crocodile toothmarks are found on butchered bones in the archeol.record. Note bones & stones leave disproportional archeol.traces: plant foods, fish, shell- & crayfish eaten in situ leave few if any traces (archeol.bias towards "meat"eating).

H.sapiens I'd think learnt to use "spears" when wading with very long legs (esp.tibias), high above the water (fully upright, e.g. only sapiens has very long & caudally directed spinous processes mid-thoracally, only sapiens have strong basi-cranial flexion & downward oriented orbitas) to look down for finding food in very shallow water.

There is nothing final in palaeoanthropology. All theories change with new fossil evidences. For instance, now Homo sapiens are thought to have diverged over 300Kya instead of 150 or 200 Kya. Ecological scenarios are more flexible but may also change with new evidences. Of course savanna hypothesis is very old and liable for modification. Water bodies enroute are essential requirement for all animals and hominins during gradual expansion- NOT migration.

Homo erectus among all Middle Pleistocene hominins has colonized the Old World and left his Acheulian artifacts everywhere on river terraces and away from rivers too. What for they were meant if  H. erectus was primarily vegetarian?

The coastal sites of Homo erectus occupations appear to be fewer than the innumerable continental sites. What does it speak for- continental  riverine or coastal routes followed by H. erectus? Of course, anatomical modern Homo sapiens did follow coastal  as well as continental routes.

“Hi John, when I said "apiths=erectus", this was in a hurry, I didn't mean that some PAs believe apiths & erectus were identical, of course, only that many PAs assume that both apiths & erectus were bipedal open plain dwellers. “

OK

“ These are no my "inferences" as you believe, these are facts which can't be denied.”

The inference is the connection implied between function and habitat. I have no problem with H. erectus or any other hominid living and moving along coastal areas. It is certainly quite possible that they were able to swim and forage in water, but I do not see this behavior as causing the origin of various anatomical features.

 “No, archeologically they didn't build boats 2 or 1 Ma, that's another anthropocentrism.”

No, it’s just a possibility. I’m not asserting it as established fact, just a possibility.

“Besides, boats were unnecessary & even incompatible with erectus' lifestyle: “

Perhaps, perhaps not

-“The hominid-pongid LCA had very likely thick enamel (as seen in most if not all mid-Miocene fossils).” Again, only if you accept the molecular phylogeny as the final truth.

“DNA differences between Homo & Pan are about 3 times less than between Homo & Pongo, between Homo & Gorilla about 2 times less. Many of the resemblances between Pongo & Homo described by Schwartz are either primitive leftovers (e.g. thick enamel), or else convergences (e.g. beards etc.), but no signs of common descent Homo-Pongo vs Pan.”

Of course, if one presupposed the DNA similarity as the final truth. The DNA differences are just measures of overall similarity – a phenetic measure.

-“H.erectus might rarely still have climbed trees, but generally they were much too heavy & slow: biologically they were littoral animals, and this indeed best explains their intercontinental dispersal, island colonisation, finds amid shellfish & even barnacles (Mojokerto), brain enlargement etc.”   Agree that this is your view.

“ PAs anthropocentrically "forget" this & all other indications that erectus were littoral, not cursorial creatures”.

Just because they lived in coastal environments does not preclude their being scansorial.

“Many PAs assume that erectus were "bipedal" for dwelling over open plains”

I did not realize that to be the case since bipedalism (of the structural kind found in hominids) already existed before erectus.

“ erectus were bipedal for beach-combing or so,”

Some teleology here. Implies that the ancestors of erectus evolved bipedalism so erectus could later engage in beach-combing.

“Of course Pleistocene Homo butchered carcasses they found at the waterside”

Or butchered animals they killed.

“H.sapiens I'd think learnt to use "spears" when wading with very long legs (esp.tibias), high above the water”

Well, that’s one theory. Another is that they inherited the ability from earlier hominid ancestors. After all, if an orangutan cam make a very primitive spear, what might be possible for an early hominid with grasping hand?

Holding firmly to one’s views has even been described (by Pooper I think) as a good thing for science as it raises the bar of proof for alternative views to become established.

“H.sapiens I'd think learnt to use "spears" when wading with very long legs (esp.tibias), high above the water” John said: Well, that’s one theory. Another is that they inherited the ability from earlier hominid ancestors. After all, if an orangutan cam make a very primitive spear, what might be possible for an early hominid with grasping hand?

Orangutans can grasp perfectly but don't use distance-weapons. H.sapiens didn't inherit very long legs: earlier Homo (erectus, neand.) had shorter legs. Earlier Homo possibly also frequently waded bipedally, but they (esp.erectus) had very heavy bones, which are exclusively seen in shallow-diving animals. H.sapiens lost this (reduction of diving) + got longer legs (flamingo>ostrich), got very long & caudally-pointing spinous processes mid-thoracally (stabilising the thoracal spine vertically) + got more basi-cranial flexion (turning the skull with the eyes more downward) + got the eyes under the frontal brain instead of in front of it as in erectus & neand. (with the same result: pointing our eyes more downward) + shoulder-joints more upward directed than in H.neand. (for throwing, not climbing). The biological picture is clear: they evolved from littoral (erectus) to wading-walking creatures (early sapiens) with distance-weapons such as nets & spears. This is confirmed by e.g. MP Richards 2001 PNAS 98:6528-32: "New C & N stable isotope values for human remains dating to the mid-UP in Europe indicate significant amounts of aquatic (fish, mollusks and/or birds) foods in some of their diets. Most of this evidence points to exploitation of inland freshwater aquatic resources in particular." I guess the birds included ducks etc.

The spear was 'invented' long before the advent of H.Sapien.  The Clacton spear and the Schöningen spears were manufactured by early Neanderthals or H.Heidelbergensis.

The weapons clearly indicate that early man was a hunter and that they would hunt large prey, since weapons of this nature would not be required to hunt small animals or fish.   

The major leap forward was the development of the throwing spear and earlier pointed weapons were more likley used to stab with.  It is nevertheless indicative of complex thinking especially anticipatory thinking and collective activity.  

Successful hunters would have had to think strategically and would have needed a rudimentary communication (language) at least.  Chimps demonstrate this behaviour when hunting, using stealth and flanking manouvers uncanily like a military patrol.  They do not however use weapons in their hunt and in the main attack smaller primates.

With stabbing spears humans would have been able to attack large ungulates and the best place to do this would have been at a water hole.  One of the theories of the Schöningen spears is that they were used in shallow water where prey animals would be outflanked and lose the speed advantage they would have on open plains.  

The question assumes paleoanthropology is a science. In fact it is a interdisciplinary 'discipline' involving geologists, who I take to be scientists, archaeologists, some of whom perform dating science or various statistical analyses of tools, etc. (which is debated how scientific it is), paleontology, which I take to be a science, prehistoric art (paleoart, rock art studies, etc., which varies in using scientific and methods and non-methods, and anthropology, which is generally, I would say, a humanities discipline, which seems to use no methodology or methodologies which wax and wane depending on what's trending in philosophy and other humanities disciplines. Of course, other disciplines can be called upon to assist paleoanthropology, such as ecology, climatology, etc., etc., some again using scientific methods, others not.  The implications and findings of any given study seem more or less contentious depending upon which sciences and which humanities are involved.  Coming from the field of the humanities, I can say that much of what is produced in those disciplines is has no method other than accumulation of anecdotal (or limited contemporary statistical) evidence so often is somewhere between opinions, gossip, and untestable speculations. As Hegel said vis a vis Schelling, he had no method for doing philosophy so his concepts and theories were like 'night in which all cows are black'. The humanities especially after passing through the endless social-critiques approach of postmodernism is in desperate need of methodologies for dealing with its various conceptual-fields.

I my experience interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams, whether in academia or public sector face huge challenges for the members to get out of their 'silos' and develop a shared hypothesis and experimentation. Transdisciplinary teams require each member to have at least minimal education/training in the other members' disciplines. This is extremely rare, but when put into effect resolves some of the contentiousness between disciplines and their different methods, concepts ('languages').

In sum, I don't see that paleoanthropology is any more contentious than any other cross-disciplinary effort involving both 'sciences' and 'humanities'.

"I my experience interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams, whether in academia or public sector face huge challenges for the members to get out of their 'silos' and develop a shared hypothesis and experimentation".

Brilliantly expressed!   It is one of the most disappointing aspects of being in academia, where bunker mentality is as firmly held onto as in politics or religion.     

Anek,

1) The fossil evidence is only part of the evidence. There's also the comparative anatomical, embryological, physiological, nutritional, paleo-environmental etc. evidence. All (incl. the fossil evidence) point into the same direction: erectus or their immediate relatives = littoral dispersal model (S.Munro 2010 see below).

2) It's well possible that erectus was primarily herbivorous, but plants leave few traces. P-F.Puech (1983 Tooth wear, diet, and the artifacts of Java Man, Curr.Anthr.24:381-2) suggests erectus ate coarse tough foods, but Gramineae or Cyperaceae are incompatible with the microwear: cattails (like neanderthals)? seaweeds (erectus at Java was found in a river delta)? waterlily roots (like erectus at GBY in Israel)? ...?

3) H.erectus is typically found at seacoasts or river deltas, AFAIK always with edible shellfish (e.g. S.Munro 2010 Molluscs as ecological indicators in palaeo-anthropological contexts, PhD thesis Austr.Natl.Univ.Canberra, J.Joordens cs 2009 Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil (Java, Indonesia), J.hum.Evol.57:656-671), never away from water.

4) H.erectus' anatomy is incompatible with more than occasionally killing animals. The whole idea that erectus killed antelopes etc is only based on just-so thinking & repeating this until everybody believes it (they must have killed animals because we kill animals), but not on any real evidence. There's no evidence erectus hunted. Butchering sites leave much more archeol.remains (stones & bones) than plant food or in situ shellfish consumption (proven, see Joordens cs 2014 above). When they butchered ungulates (also proven), I guess it was mostly leftovers of carnivores or crocodiles, or antelopes drowned when crossing rivers during the trek, or stranded whales (e.g. at Gibraltar, or much earlier on Africa's west(!) coast, see M.Gutierrez cs 2001 Exploitation d’un grand cétacé au Paléolithique ancien: le site de Dungo V à Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola), CRAS 332:357-362).

Are we not dwelling rather obsessively on this idea of hunting. H. Erectus clearly hunted from time to time because as a mammal it would have used every opportunity to obtain food.  Few animals hunt however if food is readily available, or to put it more ergonomically they will not expend energy on obtaining food beyond what is necessary. 

H.Erectus was almost certainly more 'clever' than any animal it encountered however faster, stronger and better equipped they were.  They would not have run about chasing meat if it was available as carrion, such as fresh kills from other predators.

The whole point is that they used their advanced intellect to their advantage over faster and stronger animals.  Everywhere in the animal kingdom this is observed.  Dumb predators kill and clever predators take the spoils off them.

Animals that range to seek food are opportunistic on the whole.  When our distant realtive H. Erectus found from time to time an abandoned juvenile or injured adult they probably would have killed it.  They may even have waited around water holes for weakened or injured animals, including ungulates to turn up before killing them.

Hominid evolution is not linear but somewhere along the line Hominids became carnivorous, agressive and intelligent.  Those traits are still with us so there is little doubt about that.  The only reason humans now dominate the world in their billions while apes survive in the hundreds of thousands to low millions is we are cleverer than they are, and certainly clever than the animals we competed with for millions of years.

In an earlier post I wrote Pooper instead of Popper!

Makes one wonder

Jhn

becuase to understand many human beings facts which are related to evolution of human society are a key parts to get the hole picture about what happened and what could be the next facts in the "progress " or degeneration of that society...

On the so-called   "3 times less DNA differences between Homo & Pan vis-a-vis Homo & Pongo", 

Of course, we look for  just measures of overall similarity – a phenetic measure and we have not thought for an ecological explanation for  this paradox.

I argued in my several papers that Chimps mostly retained their ancestral ecology and therefore have did not changed much from the Great-Ape-Hominin LCA.  For the same reasons they retained their dryopithecine thin enamel and associated morphological traits.

The hominins have also not changed from their primitive LCA DNA characterstic because they buffered the environmental impact by cultural means/ protection.For the same reason they retained their pongid thick enamel and associated dental-gnathic  and other morphologies listed by Schwartz, Grehan and myself in our papers.

But, there occurred a dramatic shift in the Pongo ecology from their Late Miocene ancestral drier habitats to warm-humid tropics they inhabit now in SE Asian Islands since Pleistocene  till present. Hence, This has necessitated DNA change and further morphological modifications in extant who Pongo diverged from the LCA and acquired more molecular/DNA differences, whereas Pan-Homo DNA remained almost unchanged.  This is the paradox we  often confuse and consider  closer genetic  ties of Homo-Pan/Gorilla. 

Under this scenario the resemblances between Pongo & Homo described by Schwartz are quite in line with Homo - Pongo closer ancestry.

We should not consider DNA similarities/dissimilarities as sacrosanct without thinking of ecological explanations. The DNA  also mutates due to environmental perturbations. But, hominins shielded themselves against their impact whereas the great apes remained at their mercy, hence accumulated molecular changes.

Anek,

1) Most DNA is non-coding, therefore overall DNA resemblance is most telling: if pongids & hominids split c 15 Ma (cf plate tectonics & appearance of great hominoids in Eurasia), Gorilla & Homo-Pan split 8 or 7 Ma, and H & P about 5 Ma. This fits all other evidence (attachment). There's no evidence that "Pan-Homo DNA remained almost unchanged".

2) There's no evidence of "dramatic shift in the Pongo ecology". All mid-Miocene hominids-pongids AFAIK lived in wet & hot (not dry!) forests. Pongo still does, e.g. like its close relative Lufengpithecus. Pongo's (limited) durophagy might also be primitive-hominid-pongid.

3) It may well be that bonobos (except e.g. ground-dwelling & knuckle-walking) are in many instances more primitive than the other hominids-pongids, but in other instances, Pongo is more primitive (e.g. more arboreal), and among extant hominids, Gorilla is often more primitive (e.g. large size & dentition of Chorora-, Nakali- & Samburupithecus c 10 ka). Pongo is very derived in its suspensory behavious, and Homo is of course most derived (littoral & then terrestrial bipedality).

4) As for possible ecological explanations, see attachment.

Marc- I still consider that DNA is mutable and reveals only phenetic primitive similarity between Homo- Pan.

We do not know the derived unique Homo -Pan DNA resemblance 

Pongo' arboreality and brachiation  has increased in the rain forests where ground living is not favourable. Late Miocene pongids were more generalised and also exploited ground food resources and were more omnivorous and nit more frugivorous as extant pongo. I agree with you that Pongo's suspensory behaviour is derived. In the same way its DNA differences are derived. 

If nothing else, the various opinions expressed about homind relationships and ecology illustrate the ‘contentious’ nature of the subject. One can see strong expressions of a particular view being conclusive or something to that effect, and then someone else expressing much the same for a very different view (e.g. aquatic vs arboreal heritage). I think trying to equate the origin of biology to particular habitats is fraught with problems as it assumes that habitats drive biology rather than the possibility of the reverse. But these issues are in the nature of the beast (the discipline) and the controversies are what to me make the subjects interesting. In the subject of dinosaur biology I just read a recent argument for adult T-rex being able to only do a fast walk due to its legs being unable to withstand the physical impact imposed by running. Quite a contrast to earlier views, and then again perhaps someone in the future will come up with another biophysics analysis to argue again the opposite.

Marc asserts that “Most DNA is non-coding, therefore overall DNA resemblance is most telling”.  This does not follow at all. What matters in systematics, whether in molecular sequencing or morphology is that what counts are uniquely shared derived characters. Just stating the overall resemblance of DNA bases does not meet that criterion as noted by Anek. Even meeting it is difficult in molecular sequencing, especially for primate systematics where the matching algorithms required to ‘homologize’ genes of unequal lengths requires a measurement of overall similarity to get the 'best fit' between gaps and substitutions that have to be created by the algorithm. While it is possible to question any morphological features as phylogenetically informative the same is also true of molecular similarity.

Hi Anek,

1) The DNA leaves no doubt: Pan is our closest relative, then Gorilla, then Pongo, then gibbons etc. This fits all anatomical evidence.

2) The early hominoids are typically found in swamp forests, and their anatomy (very broad thorax & pelvis, dorsal scapulae & arms aside, upright spine with lumbar shortening, sacralisation & tail loss etc.) confirms they were vertical climbers (not brachiators), below-branch (vs monkeys are above-branch). IMO they followed the swamp forests around the Tethys: pongids Eastern Tethys, hominids Western Tethys = split c 15 Ma, see e.g. our TREE paper (with Pierre-François Puech & Steven Munro) Aquarboreal ancestors? Trends Ecol.Evol.17:212-7, 2002.

"1) The DNA leaves no doubt: Pan is our closest relative, then Gorilla, then Pongo, then gibbons etc. This fits all anatomical evidence".  Disagree

"2) The early hominoids are typically found in swamp forests, and their anatomy (very broad thorax & pelvis, dorsal scapulae & arms aside, upright spine with lumbar shortening, sacralisation & tail loss etc.) confirms they were vertical climbers (not brachiators), below-branch (vs monkeys are above-branch)."

Orangutans can walk both above branch and below branch at the same time.

"IMO they followed the swamp forests around the Tethys:"

It’s certainly a possibility supported by the biogeography of the hominid-orangutan clade.

Cheers, John

Hi John, morphology can be notoriously misleading at first sight (reverse, parallel, convergent etc. evolution is not infrequent), e.g. Gorilla & Pan resemble each other in general morphologically more than one of them resembles us (although anatomical details generally confirm the molecules, see already the work of Adolph Schultz c 50 yrs ago), yet both proteins & DNA showed in the 1960s & 70s (I corresponded in the 80s with Sarich, Goodman, Hasegawa etc.) that Homo & Pan are somewhat closer relatives than Pan & Gorilla, or Homo & Gorilla, and much more than one of these (P, H or G) & Pongo. Schultz' work clearly showed that Pongo is anatomically quite different from the other great hominoids, he had no doubt that the African hominids were 1 group vs the Asian pongids. All evidence (anatomical, molecular, fossil, geographical) points in the same direction.

“Hi John, morphology can be notoriously misleading at first sight (reverse, parallel, convergent etc. evolution is not infrequent),”

Sure. That is why one must use shared derived characters and chose the best set to get the best tree.

“e.g. Gorilla & Pan resemble each other in general morphologically more than one of them resembles us (although anatomical details generally confirm the molecules, see already the work of Adolph Schultz c 50 yrs ago), yet both proteins & DNA showed in the 1960s & 70s (I corresponded in the 80s with Sarich, Goodman, Hasegawa etc.) that Homo & Pan are somewhat closer relatives than Pan & Gorilla, or Homo & Gorilla, and much more than one of these (P, H or G) & Pongo. Schultz'”

There are problems with this data in the 1960’s and 70’s covered by Schwartz

“work clearly showed that Pongo is anatomically quite different from the other great hominoids”

Differences are phylogenetically uninformative

“he had no doubt that the African hominids were 1 group vs the Asian pongids.”

Sure, but some of his data said otherwise.

“All evidence (anatomical, molecular, fossil, geographical) points in the same direction”

No it does not

Cheers, John

Different proteins yielded different divergence dates. These are also phenetic and adaptive in nature.

Savanna or acquaric hypitheses deal with mopholgocal chracters If  notoriously confusing then why to own or disown.

Leaving aside the physical features, if you simply watch Orangutan videos you will be impressed by  its refined human like facial expressions and various other activitivities.

I think we have discussed enough and need a break

John said:

-“Hi John, morphology can be notoriously misleading at first sight (reverse, parallel, convergent etc. evolution is not infrequent),” Sure. That is why one must use shared derived characters and chose the best set to get the best tree.

Pan & Gorilla share e.g. knuckle-walking (derived), but Pan is a closer relative of us than Gorilla is: KWing in P & G evolved in parallel. Your choice of the "best" characters is apparently subjective. The choice of "bipedality" as a derived character made many PAs believe that australopiths are derived in the human direction, whereas they were evolving in the chimp or gorilla direction, see e.g. my 1994 & 1996 papers in Human Evolution.

-... There are problems with this data in the 1960s and 70s covered by Schwartz.

IMO, Schwartz used convergences & retained primitivisms to create problems where there were none. All evidence confirms: Pan is Homo's closest relative.

Anek is probably right. This discussion has run it course as indicated by the repetitions. That being said, I have to respond to the most recent. Apologies in advance.

“Pan & Gorilla share e.g. knuckle-walking (derived), but Pan is a closer relative of us than Gorilla is: KWing in P & G evolved in parallel. Your choice of the "best" characters is apparently subjective. “

I would have to say “nonsense”. Characters chosen were any that were uniquely shared among large bodied hominoids relative to outgroup of small bodied hominoids and monkeys.

“The choice of "bipedality" as a derived character made many PAs believe that australopiths are derived in the human direction, whereas they were evolving in the chimp or gorilla direction, see e.g. my 1994 & 1996 papers in Human Evolution.”

The recognition of a hominid clade of Homo and australopiths was not based on bipedality as a derived character in the orangutan analysis.

“IMO, Schwartz used convergences & retained primitivisms”

Did not

“to create problems where there were none. All evidence confirms: Pan is Homo's closest relative.”

Repeating it does not make it true.

And at this point this is probably where the matter rests.

Cheers, John

I think we need to give a long pause on Homo-Pan or Homo-Pongo hypotheses since they are diametrically opposite. Primitive characters of one set become derived in other set and vice versa.

Cheers_ Anek

John

There is far more to discuss that the Pan & Gorilla debate.  I agree with Anek, we need a break from it.  Palaeoanthropologists discuss more matters than knuckle walking or arborealism.  Its like holding a debate about cars and ony talking about the tyres.

There are many other controversies such as the interaction between different species of humans.  Were modern humans directly or indirectly responsible for the demise of  Neanderthals?

When did abstract thought commence?  Is the Makapansgat pebble an indication of abstract thought in Australopithecines?  When did spoken language first occur?  

In the case of language it seems obvious that in order to make complex tools such as those constructed by humans that dexterity alone would not have been sufficient.  It is one thing learning how to use a stick to catch termites and another to construct  effective handaxes and scrapers.  It has to be presumed that this was taught from one hominid to another maybe even in a 'classroom' scenario.

Humans and their ancestors were clearly more complex creatures than that displayed simply by their physiology.  Paleoanthropology is just as much about psychology as the physical characteristics of gorillas, chimps and orang-utans.

However closely related we are to chimps and bonobos we are vastly different creatures and so even were most of our early ancestors.  We could perhaps spend some time considering that.    

Hi John, if we want to talk about cars, we should not only talk about the seats but forget the tyres.

-"Were modern humans directly or indirectly responsible for the demise of Neanderthals?"  Will Europeans directly & indirectly be responsible for the demise of Indians? In the end (say within a few hundred or thousand years), probably a few percents of Indian genes will be found in the American population.

-"When did abstract thought commence?" Millions of years ago: see the mental skills of other mammals, birds (crows, parrots) & even octopus.

-For language origins, see the attachment.

-We learn to make complex tools, not in the first place by talking about them, but by seeing how others make them.

-"Humans and their ancestors were clearly more complex creatures than that displayed simply by their physiology ... However closely related we are to chimps and bonobos, we are vastly different creatures..." This is old-fashioned anthropocentrism, John: pre-darwinian. Anthropocentrism (humans as centre of world or even universe) not only underestimates the complexity of non-human creatures, but also has always hindered scientific progress.

Marc

"This is old-fashioned anthropocentrism"  Yes of course it is but I am not saying that the chimps cannot have their say or that gorillas need to be censored.  They have just as much right to contribute to this thread as anyone else but I have yet to seen any contribution from them anywhere else on RG either.

"-We learn to make complex tools, not in the first place by talking about them, but by seeing how others make them"

No one ever made a circular saw by watching someone else do so.  It is highly unlikley that hominids manufactured complex stone tools simply by watching another homind do so.  This is a far different set of tasks than breaking off a twig and poking it in a termite nest. 

There is no suggestion that humans are the center of the universe, the universe does not have a centre and even if it did our cosmic geographical location would be irrelevant to our evolutionary development.

I am not 'underestimating' non-human creatures, cuttlefish and ants are very complex too and being different is not a value judgement.  It is for instance a fact that leopards can run faster than humans and chimps but to say that is not felixcentric, its simply an evolutionary consequence of nature.

Hi Barry & John, sorry I confused you both. Only 2 comments:

- Our Pleistocene ancestors didn't make circular saws, but watching somebody making spears or bows (complex & composed tools) is much more important that hearing his words about how he does this.

- Quadrupedal chimps, although only half as fast as leopards, are still a lot faster than humans, on the ground as well as in the branches: this suggests humans evolved partly in non-terrestrial & non-arboreal milieus, google e.g. "Attenborough Schagatay Brenna reply".

It is impossible to teach anyone (or anything) how to manufacture a bow and arrow without the use of complex abstract language, be it verbal or non verbal.  No primate other than humans is anywhere near capable of repeating this kind of task however much they could be induced to watch it.

Chimps cannot make complex tools, even a handaxe is beyond their physical and mental capacity.  This is not anthropocentrism it is a simple set of facts.  Humans and their hominid ancestors are the only creatures capable of visualising the skills needed to make complex tools and passing that on to others.  That is presumably why other species, including apes and monkeys have not done so.  They have of course had sufficient evolutionary time to acquire those skills so other factors must be at play.

Thousands of hours have been spent attempting to get chimps to 'speak'.  While it is clear they have complex communication skills they are unable to formulate abstract concepts as modern and earlier hominids have been able to.   

Lacking this essential skill the mental capacity of non human primates is at a dead end.  In the last two million years hominids have evolved from an animal very close in intellectual capacity to a chimp to an animal capable of sending its manufactured tools to Pluto and beyond.

In the same period chimps, gorillas and orange-utans have not even evolved the awareness of Pluto, let alone sent their manufactured goods there.  

As for speed.  Humans can travel at far greater speeds than any other animal known.  They can do this on land and in the air and can travel deeper and higher than any primate.  A quadrupedal gait is no substitute for a brain that can make supersonic aircraft and deep ocean submarines. 

Barry, IMO you're incredibly anthropocentric (= believing that humans are unlike other animals): I think this largely answers your question why PA is perhaps the most contentious of sciences. Humans are animals like all other animals, but we differ from chimps e.g. in having evolved at the waterside during a littoral phase (most likely early-Pleistocene: intercontinental coastal dispersal before 1.8 Ma), which can help understand most features in which Homo began differing from Pan, including speech (e.g. voluntary breathing, see attachment). Of course, chimps can't speak: they had no littoral phase. And of course, human languages (spoken language, but also mathematical notations etc.) were necessary to go to the moon, possibly for  constructing the earliest bows (I'd better not used this example), but not for making handaxes (which existed long before spoken language).

"incredibly anthropocentric"

It is probably someting to do with being Homo Sapien.  

"Humans are animals like all other animals,"

No, they are not and that is self evident.  It is one thing saying we should be humane (anthropocentric again) to animals, quite another suggesting we are the same.  Yes of course we have physiological similarities, we are genetically not that far from a fruit fly but we do not measure animals by their genome.

I appreciate your theory about us evolving near the waterside even though I do not necessarily agree that that was the sole environmental factor that caused us to differentiate from our arboreal cousins.  Frankly it is stretching credibility to suggest that it is the reason we are more intelligent than they are.

The manufacture of handaxes may well have begun before humans developed modern speech capacity but is was after they developed the ability to employ abstract thought and complex symbolic communication.  

Take a look at the West Tofts handaxe.  Not only does it demonstrate abstract thought it took special skill to knap that into a symbolic pattern.  

Hi Barry,

- Humans are no exception: we're animals like all other animals, although we're special, e.g. causing the Anthropocene extinctions.

- Deducing "abstract thoughts" (meaning? definition?) from masterpieces animals make (handaxes yes, but not beaver ponds, termite hills etc.?) is already anthropocentric IMO.

- I never said we're more intelligent because we were waterside, on the contrary. In fact, "intelligence" is a psychological term (IQ) which I avoid, and which IMO shouldn't be used in biology: all living spp have survived so long, so they're all "intelligent" in their own way.

- Brain size is something else: it's not surprising that an ex-arboreal plus ex-littoral creature is so large-brained.

Marc

I think we can solve the anthropocentric debate quite simply.  I do not believe humans to be the most important life form on the planet in terms of biology.  If importance was anything more than a value judgement it is clear that bacteria would win that accolade.

Bacteria predate us on the planet by billions of years, they can survive in even more habitats than we can, we need them for our survival but they do not needs us for theirs.  Their evolutionary cycle means that they can adapt to just about every environmental change.  They will almost certainly outlive every other life form on the planet and they will certainly outlive chimps, bonobos, gorillas and Orang-utans.

This thread is not however about biology it is about paleaoanthropology, a subject which requires consideration of psychological, social and physiological considerations.  I am unsure how we can consider the evolution of humans in the absence of considering intelligence.

Hi Barry,

- Paleoanthropology, psychology, sociobiology etc are part of biology. We can't describe human evoloution only from "within" : we always need external references : comparative anatomy, ethology etc.

- Intelligence is a very subjective word which should be avoided IMO (except IQ in psychology). My book on human evolution didn't use the word "intelligence". It's unnecessary, and IMO only confuses objective discussions of human evolution.

- For what I mean with "anthropocentrism", please see attachment (just updated): traditional paleoanthropology is often unscientifically anthropocentric, e.g. prof.Berger's belief that "his" fossil (naledi) belongs to Homo (very unlikely IMO, although perhaps not fully impossible with what we know today), or that they buried their dead in caves (= ridiculous anthropocentrism IMO).

Dear Marc,

The comparative study of intelligence is on a pretty sound footing. See:

Reader, S. M. and K. N. Laland (2002). "Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4436-4441.

Sol, D., et al. (2008). "Brain Size Predicts the Success of Mammal Species Introduced into Novel Environments." The American Naturalist 172(S1): S63-S71.

Sol, D., et al. (2005). "Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel environments." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 102(15): 5461-5465.

Best, Pete

Dear Peter, please discern between "intelligence" & "big brain": these are not the same, as I repeatedly argued here: "intelligence" may be a psychological term (IQ) but is worthless & even confusing in paleo-anthropology.

Yes, the comparative studies of D.Sol et al. nicely confirm what I said. Homo's dispersal along the African & Eurasian coasts in the early-Pleistocene was clearly a very "novel environment", e.g. the Mojokerto child was found amid shellfish & barnacles in a river delta (attachment).

Comparative data: Generally, big brains are  larger in tree-dwellers than in ground-dwellers, much larger in (semi)aquatic than in terrestrial species, larger in omni- & frugivores than in herbi- & insectivores, larger in novel milieus, larger in more varied milieus (e.g. edge between land & water), but not larger in social than in more solitary spp, e.g. among hominoids: orangutans have rel.(EQ) larger brains than gorillas.

Reader et al.'s define their "social intelligence" as cognitive ability, behavioral innovation, social learning + tool use. Behav.innovation & cognitive ability we all agree I suppose, although these terms are vague. Social learning is even vager: all mammals learn socially, at least during the lactating period. Tool use is seen in sea- & other otters, marsh mungo's & capuchin monkeys opening shells & in chimps & capuchins opening nuts (durophagy). Reader et al. are at least wrong in the case of hominoids: orangs have larger EQ than gorillas.

Dear Marc,

See Kevin's discussion of what he calls "primate g," primate general intelligence in his book Darwin's Unfinished Symphony. It seems to me that he and his colleagues have operationalized primate g in a rather convincing way. 

Best, Pete

Hi Peter, of course, capuchins, apes, macaques & baboons are not so dumb in our (primate) eyes, they sometimes use tools, and are social animals, but so are e.g. ravens, otters & dolphins, and postulating from this a "primate g" general intteligence is very questionable IMO, it doesn't bring us further AFAICS (if it exists, so what?) and is hardly (only tools) applicable to paleo-anthropology. IMO it only enhances the impression that PA might be a very contentious science.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I think we can sum up the difference between human use of tools and the use of them by ravens, chimps, termites etc.

Humans can discus in intricate detail the tools used by their evolutionary forebears and termites apparently do not.  This inspite of how many more millions of years termites have on us in the planet's history

Humans can speculate (endlessly if other threads on RG are visited) on the 'tools' we would need to travel across interstellar space but chimps appear to be uninterested.

Two hundred years ago humans invented steam engines and by incremental development now have many variations of motive power.  Ravens still have a stick like they did two hundred thousand years ago.

Compared to humans chimps, termites and ravens are dumb, however charged that value judgement may be.  Some of us may not like that but such sentiments are as futile as disliking gravity.  

Leopards can run faster than we can but we are smarter than they are.  Fleas can jump higher than we can but the last time they had 'the edge' on humans was during the Black Death (that was Yersina Pestis in any case, the fleas just took the credit).  

Chimps have had the opportunity to evolve complex abstract intelligence for as long as we anthropocentric humans.  They did not do so.  It could be because they are too dumb or it could be simply that they are bone idle, maybe a bit of both.

One thing is sure.  Homo Ergaster was vastly cleverer than any of its chimp contemporaries.  That is why humans are the dominant species (apart from bacteria) on the planet.  By the way, I am well aware that such a point may be 'anthropocentric' but who cares, the chimps have never complained about it.