Apes did not have to be aquaphobes. That
was probably quite accidental. The first apes
(gibbon-like IMO) found themselves on an
island surrounded by fast-flowing water. So,
like many flightless bird species on small
oceanic islands, there was selection against
a near-universal ability which was likely to
get them into trouble.

Apes could well have evolved in another
location, retaining the standard mammalian
ability to swim and never acquired a fear of
water.

What difference would that have made for
ape and hominin evolution?

I doubt if it would have had much effect on
that of apes, per se. Gibbons would not be
as split up into so many different species,
with few significant differences. Likewise,
there would probably have been fewer
fossil species of ape in Europe and Africa
around 10-12 ma.

But would hominins have ever evolved?
They split from chimps when there was a
small rise in sea-levels, or a change in the
course of a major river, creating an off-
shore island. If the mainland chimps could
have swum across, that population might
never have achieved the genetic isolation
necessary for a new species.

As it was, even a small body of water was
enough to allow the (proto-)hominins to
maintain genetic isolation. They would
have needed a larger one before they
started to descend from the trees and live
on the ground. That would not have been
possible in the presence of large mainland
omnivores, and we can assume that a few
individuals of those species would swim
to visible islands from time to time.

Did this process happen, or begin to
happen, several times before it was finally
successful? IMO that's just about possible
and, if various fossil apes before the
australopiths (e.g. Sahelanthropus, Orrorin)
are shown to be bipedal, or other bipeds
are found, they could have come from
earlier proto-hominin populations. They
would have been even more rare on the
mainland African landscape than
australopiths later became, and so could
have wandered around for a while in
relative safety. The local fauna would not
have known what to make of them.

> Apes did not have to be aquaphobes.

Google
"bonobo wading",
"gorilla bai".

Paul Crowley wrote:

> Apes did not have to be aquaphobes.

Talking about evolution, literally NOTHING had to happen. In fact,
most species go extinct. The default is "They all die." The exception
is "They adapted, they evolved."

> That
> was probably quite accidental. The first apes
> (gibbon-like IMO) found themselves on an
> island surrounded by fast-flowing water. So,
> like many flightless bird species on small
> oceanic islands, there was selection against
> a near-universal ability which was likely to
> get them into trouble.

I tend to think that it happened in stages. That, going back to
monkeys, one or more population adapted to an aquatic
diet and then eventually moved away from it/adapted to an
inland environment while retaining some of the aquatic
features (adaptations).

Look at the skeleton of a giant sauropod dinosaur. It so
closely resembles the skeleton of the much smaller,
bipedal dinosaurs that it evolved from that some crazy
people thought it must've reared up on it's hind legs.

"Law of conservation," baby! Unless there's selective
pressure to get rid of a trait, it's just as likely to remain as
get bred out, even if the trait evolved for a different
environment/lifestyle...

And I never believed that the "Aquatic Ape" population was
alone on the planet. Groups were getting driven inland from
the start -- natural disasters, competition, climate change --
and adapting. In fact, I see this and the true engine of human
evolution. That, thanks to the glacial/interglacial cycle, these
separate population were cut off from each other during
interglacials, adapting, evolving, and then during glacial periods
their genes were getting exchanged... the best shared and
retained by all.

The aquatic/coastal population was the key. It was the link. It
was the conduit through which DNA flowed between the
continents.

But the point is, this model has DIFFERENT and DISTINCT
populations!

> Apes could well have evolved in another
> location, retaining the standard mammalian
> ability to swim and never acquired a fear of
> water.

But they were an inland group. They were the ones who left the
water, adapted to inland environments.

> What difference would that have made for
> ape and hominin evolution?

I don't understand the question.

> But would hominins have ever evolved?
> They split from chimps when there was a
> small rise in sea-levels, or a change in the
> course of a major river, creating an off-
> shore island. If the mainland chimps could
> have swum across, that population might
> never have achieved the genetic isolation
> necessary for a new species.

The chimps split off from us. So we would still have
evolved but they would not have.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/686063009321336832

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 11:28:14 AM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
> Apes did not have to be aquaphobes. That
> was probably quite accidental. The first apes
> (gibbon-like IMO) found themselves on an
> island surrounded by fast-flowing water. So,
> like many flightless bird species on small
> oceanic islands, there was selection against
> a near-universal ability which was likely to
> get them into trouble.
>
> Apes could well have evolved in another
> location, retaining the standard mammalian
> ability to swim and never acquired a fear of
> water.
>
> What difference would that have made for
> ape and hominin evolution?
>
> I doubt if it would have had much effect on
> that of apes, per se. Gibbons would not be
> as split up into so many different species,
> with few significant differences. Likewise,
> there would probably have been fewer
> fossil species of ape in Europe and Africa
> around 10-12 ma.
>
> But would hominins have ever evolved?
> They split from chimps when there was a
> small rise in sea-levels, or a change in the
> course of a major river, creating an off-
> shore island. If the mainland chimps could
> have swum across, that population might
> never have achieved the genetic isolation
> necessary for a new species.
>
> As it was, even a small body of water was
> enough to allow the (proto-)hominins to
> maintain genetic isolation. They would
> have needed a larger one before they
> started to descend from the trees and live
> on the ground. That would not have been
> possible in the presence of large mainland
> omnivores, and we can assume that a few
> individuals of those species would swim
> to visible islands from time to time.
>
> Did this process happen, or begin to
> happen, several times before it was finally
> successful? IMO that's just about possible
> and, if various fossil apes before the
> australopiths (e.g. Sahelanthropus, Orrorin)
> are shown to be bipedal, or other bipeds
> are found, they could have come from
> earlier proto-hominin populations. They
> would have been even more rare on the
> mainland African landscape than
> australopiths later became, and so could
> have wandered around for a while in
> relative safety. The local fauna would not
> have known what to make of them.

Apes avoid water because their ancestors were islanded.
Humans are aquatic because their ancestors were islanded.
Double fantasy: Atlantis x Atlantis.

On Saturday 4 June 2022 at 14:30:53 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> Apes avoid water because their ancestors were islanded.

Apes avoid water. What do YOU think is
the reason?

> Humans are aquatic

Humans are certainly not aquatic. They
share with other apes the fear of water from
birth. But most apes (especially humans)
can, given the right conditions, learn how to
overcome that fear and master swimming.

> because their ancestors were islanded.

Humans (and earlier hominins) often had
a need to swim, and many or most
populations had members who learned
how.