Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Aquatic elephants?
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Rolf
Jun 14, 2013, 3:41:52 AM6/14/13
to
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
"By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
"By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
Arkalen
Jun 14, 2013, 4:53:12 AM6/14/13
to
happened in the Devonian.
From what I've gathered the Aquatic Ape hypothesis isn't considered
improbable a priori, it's just that all the evidence is against it. That
there is evidence for an amphibious ancestor to elephants is completely
irrelevant.
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 14, 2013, 4:53:51 AM6/14/13
to
million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
big a deal.
If you really want to blow your mind, google on hyraxes. If a small,
rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
because it appears improbable.
Mitchell Coffey
pnyikos
Jun 14, 2013, 8:37:33 AM6/14/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 14/06/13 08:41, Rolf wrote:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>
> > "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
> > were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
> > today's diving mammals.
Fine, but the "molecular signature on myoglobin" that drives the next
> On 14/06/13 08:41, Rolf wrote:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>
> > "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
> > were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
> > today's diving mammals.
comment is a mighty flimsy peg on which to hang it:
> > We were even able to report the first evidence of a
> > common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
> > lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
"first evidence" was. Did the team study mammals from every order,
and discover that this particular clade had a stronger molecular
signature than almost every clade of non-diving mammals?
Unfortunately, the referenced article is paywalled here, but when I
get into the university, I might be able to look it up.
Journal Reference:
1.S. Mirceta, A. V. Signore, J. M. Burns, A. R. Cossins, K. L.
Campbell, M. Berenbrink. Evolution of Mammalian Diving Capacity Traced
by Myoglobin Net Surface Charge. Science, 2013; 340 (6138): 1234192
DOI: 10.1126/science.1234192
> > If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
> > hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
> > phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>
> Of course there was an aquatic phase in the evolution of man. It
> happened in the Devonian.
Devonian. Of course, the real question is whether there was an
amphibious primate.
> From what I've gathered the Aquatic Ape hypothesis isn't considered
> improbable a priori, it's just that all the evidence is against it. That
> there is evidence for an amphibious ancestor to elephants is completely
> irrelevant.
been conjectured for the better part of a century that *Moeritherium*,
which was a direct ancestor of our elephants (or at least very close
to one) had hippo-like habits.
It's the hyraxes that lift the article's hypothesis out of the
ordinary.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics --standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
Jun 14, 2013, 8:43:54 AM6/14/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>
> > "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
> > were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
> > today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
> > common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
> > lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>
> > If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
> > hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
> > phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>
> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
> big a deal.
Actually, it would be. That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>
> > "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
> > were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
> > today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
> > common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
> > lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>
> > If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
> > hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
> > phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>
> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
> big a deal.
used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
> If you really want to blow your mind, google on hyraxes. If a small,
> rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
> elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
> because it appears improbable.
replies to me.
Peter Nyikos
Rolf
Jun 14, 2013, 10:38:08 AM6/14/13
to
"Arkalen" <ark...@inbox.com> skrev i melding
news:5SA*dA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> On 14/06/13 08:41, Rolf wrote:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>
>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of
>> a
>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>
>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
>> aquatic
>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>
>>
>
> Of course there was an aquatic phase in the evolution of man. It
> happened in the Devonian.
>
I don't see the times (Devonian) of origins of tetrapods as relevant wrt a
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>
>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of
>> a
>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>
>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
>> aquatic
>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>
>>
>
> Of course there was an aquatic phase in the evolution of man. It
> happened in the Devonian.
>
possible aquatic phase in the evolution of a hominid.
I don't care one way or the other, I only wish we knew much more than we
know about our and all our close relative's past. I presume we all share the
same wish.
Arkalen
Jun 14, 2013, 1:34:21 PM6/14/13
to
On 14/06/13 15:38, Rolf wrote:
> "Arkalen" <ark...@inbox.com> skrev i melding
> news:5SA*dA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> On 14/06/13 08:41, Rolf wrote:
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>>
>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of
>>> a
>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>>
>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
>>> aquatic
>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course there was an aquatic phase in the evolution of man. It
>> happened in the Devonian.
>>
>
> I don't see the times (Devonian) of origins of tetrapods as relevant wrt a
> possible aquatic phase in the evolution of a hominid.
It's true "evolution of man" is an ambiguous phrase. It could mean the
> "Arkalen" <ark...@inbox.com> skrev i melding
> news:5SA*dA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> On 14/06/13 08:41, Rolf wrote:
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>>
>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of
>>> a
>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>>
>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
>>> aquatic
>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course there was an aquatic phase in the evolution of man. It
>> happened in the Devonian.
>>
>
> I don't see the times (Devonian) of origins of tetrapods as relevant wrt a
> possible aquatic phase in the evolution of a hominid.
whole evolutionary history of the lineage that led to Homo sapiens, the
history of the genus Homo only, or the history of the species Homo
sapiens. I always tend to interpret the phrase in the first sense to be
flip but it's true people usually mean one of the other two meanings. Or
something less well-defined.
Of course since both the genus Homo and the species Homo sapiens are
much more recent than 65 million years and their common ancestor with
elephants and hyraxes goes back to 100 million, that makes what the
elephants' ancestors were like 65 million years ago even more obviously
irrelevant.
> I don't care one way or the other, I only wish we knew much more than we
> know about our and all our close relative's past. I presume we all share the
> same wish.
is that there wasn't a major aquatic phase in our recent evolutionary
history. Not because such an idea is absurd, such that the revelation
that an unrelated mammal lineage had an aquatic phase (and still does,
for dugongs) tens of millions of years before might change our mind, but
because the evidence is against it.
Paul J Gans
Jun 14, 2013, 1:50:10 PM6/14/13
to
--
--- Paul J. Gans
pnyikos
Jun 14, 2013, 5:09:33 PM6/14/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
being less high than the aardvark or elephants in the myoglobin the
authors correlate with amphibious habits, I cannot figure out why they
decided to rate extinct hyraxes, whose myoglobin is no longer
available for testing, so high.
If you can deduce it from the following passage, you are doing better
than I did with my first read:
____________________________________________
An amphibious ancestry of hyraxes may appear surprising; however, past
hyracoid diversity was much richer than indicated by the three small-
bodied (<5 kg), strictly terrestrial genera of today, as illustrated
by the at least two times larger Pliohyrax kruppii and the 390-kg
Kvabebihyrax kachethicus from the Pliocene (2 to 5 Ma), for which
semiaquatic lifestyles have been proposed as long as a century ago
(39, 40). Recent isotope evidence has further indicated a possible
semiaquatic lifestyle for the late Eocene (37 Ma) Thyrohyrax meyeri
and another, as yet unnamed, new hyracoid genus of similar age (34).
The reconstruction of a high ZMb value in a hyracoid ancestor is not
affected when ancestral sequence reconstruction is based on
alternative phylogenetic hypotheses, such as hyraxes rather than
sirenians comprising the sister group to proboscideans (41). This and
recurrent gigantism [e.g., rhinoceros-sized Titanohyrax ultimus (42)]
calls for a reassessment of the lifestyle of other fossil hyraxes that
have previously been considered unambiguously terrestrial (37).
___________end of excerpt
from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1234192.full
On top of everything else, I don't see how all this bears on the
putative common ancestor of ca. 65 milllion years ago.
I won't have time to really study the large file of supplemental
material for a good while -- the next three weeks are going to be
mostly quality time with my family, and I'll be taking a posting break
starting the middle of next week.
Anyway, here is the url for it; maybe it isn't paywalled [I can't tell
from here--I can access _Science_ in full from here] and someone else
can give us the lowdown on hyraxes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/06/12/340.6138.1234192.DC1/Mirceta.SM.pdf
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
pnyikos
Jun 14, 2013, 5:16:46 PM6/14/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jun 14, 1:50 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Is that supposed to be relevant? The usual explanation in the 1990's,
when I last saw this matter discussed is that sweat glands are a
primitive condition going back to amphibians, and the loss of sweat
glands is a derived character.
Btw, ever see a horse sweat? The old misleading formula "sweat like a
pig" is VASTLY improved by substituting "horse" for "pig".
I don't think horses have had an aquatic episode since well before
Hyracotherium.
By the way, your snow job on transmissions from Alpha Centauri and
the inverse square law has been "outed," and I look forward to your
reply.
References on request, early next week. Duty calls now.
Peter Nyikos
when I last saw this matter discussed is that sweat glands are a
primitive condition going back to amphibians, and the loss of sweat
glands is a derived character.
Btw, ever see a horse sweat? The old misleading formula "sweat like a
pig" is VASTLY improved by substituting "horse" for "pig".
I don't think horses have had an aquatic episode since well before
Hyracotherium.
By the way, your snow job on transmissions from Alpha Centauri and
the inverse square law has been "outed," and I look forward to your
reply.
References on request, early next week. Duty calls now.
Peter Nyikos
Dana Tweedy
Jun 14, 2013, 6:09:44 PM6/14/13
to
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IRPBq-CRlqM/TGjXckRR-UI/AAAAAAAACAI/NJFT1vvIIFQ/s400/elephant-swim--large-msg-11667999027.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0e2hWhx8Byg/TyGLs2ntJ4I/AAAAAAAAA4Q/dKO2-f6cSyg/s1600/1.jpg
http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/1/15300/16_2008/elephantswim1.jpg
Apparently elephants swim fairly well.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Jun 14, 2013, 6:10:30 PM6/14/13
to
DJT
jillery
Jun 14, 2013, 10:32:31 PM6/14/13
to
William Morse
Jun 15, 2013, 12:55:49 AM6/15/13
to
evolved near water, and very little evidence that humans evolved in water.
Friar Broccoli
Jun 15, 2013, 12:17:17 AM6/15/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:43:54 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/12/ba/8a/capuchin-monkeys.jpg
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
http://img.timeinc.net/time/2012/influentialplaces/koshima.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NgFUyQash5Y/T19jzQBXrBI/AAAAAAAAOzw/WuMUCXqR_-s/s1600/snow_monkeys_small_tank.jpg
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Friar Broccoli
Jun 15, 2013, 12:23:13 AM6/15/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:17:17 -0700, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:43:54 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
>
>http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/12/ba/8a/capuchin-monkeys.jpg
>
>http://img.timeinc.net/time/2012/influentialplaces/koshima.jpg
>
>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NgFUyQash5Y/T19jzQBXrBI/AAAAAAAAOzw/WuMUCXqR_-s/s1600/snow_monkeys_small_tank.jpg
I also really liked these:
http://www.doest-photography.com/bestanden/jdo_20090120_0345_2.jpg
http://www.indianlandmtndogs.com/adventures/Swimming-%20Copper%20and%20girls.JPG
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:43:54 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
>
>http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/12/ba/8a/capuchin-monkeys.jpg
>
>http://img.timeinc.net/time/2012/influentialplaces/koshima.jpg
>
>http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NgFUyQash5Y/T19jzQBXrBI/AAAAAAAAOzw/WuMUCXqR_-s/s1600/snow_monkeys_small_tank.jpg
http://www.doest-photography.com/bestanden/jdo_20090120_0345_2.jpg
http://www.indianlandmtndogs.com/adventures/Swimming-%20Copper%20and%20girls.JPG
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 15, 2013, 1:18:51 AM6/15/13
to
On 6/14/2013 8:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>
>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>
>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>
>> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
>> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
>> big a deal.
>
> Actually, it would be. That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
>
> Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
Proboscis monkeys are arboreal, but swim well and spend a great deal of
> On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>
>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>
>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>
>> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
>> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
>> big a deal.
>
> Actually, it would be. That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
>
> Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
time in or near water. Japanese macaques are arboreal and terrestrial,
and spend a good amount of time in water, also swimming well. Neither
spends half their time in water or near, so they're not semi-aquatic, if
that's your definition. But the issue is if it would be a big deal to
discover a semi-aquatic human ancestor from sixty-five million years ago.
>> If you really want to blow your mind, google on hyraxes. If a small,
>> rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
>> elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
>> because it appears improbable.
>
> HUH??? Is Rolf a creationist? I never would have guessed it from his
> replies to me.
creationist?
Mitchell Coffey
Rolf
Jun 15, 2013, 4:01:30 AM6/15/13
to
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> skrev i melding
news:kpgnj...@news6.newsguy.com...
many species have discovered.
Rolf
Jun 15, 2013, 4:04:47 AM6/15/13
to
"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:kpgt75$og0$1...@dont-email.me...
> Mitchell Coffey
>
>
Rolf
Jun 15, 2013, 4:06:36 AM6/15/13
to
"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:QIKdnUqCu7hKCSbM...@giganews.com...
>
> DJT
>
Paul J Gans
Jun 15, 2013, 4:04:59 PM6/15/13
to
glands all over their bodies. Aquatic mammals do NOT have
sweat glands all over their bodies.
Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. In
particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
are that only because of their sweat glands.
The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
past.
jillery
Jun 15, 2013, 5:28:41 PM6/15/13
to
their body heat. Hypothermia is a great selection mechanism for thick
fur and blubber.
Glenn
Jun 16, 2013, 12:06:12 AM6/16/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpihdb$esh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is fairly clear
that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
Paul J Gans
Jun 16, 2013, 3:59:30 PM6/16/13
to
mouth open while panting.
2) Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. A man in good shape
can easily run one down. Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 16, 2013, 5:17:24 PM6/16/13
to
On 6/14/2013 8:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>
>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of
mammals, we
>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct
ancestors of
>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first
evidence of a
>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and
elephants that
>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>
>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
aquatic
>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>
>> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
>> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
>> big a deal.
>
> Actually, it would be. That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
>
> Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
>> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>
>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of
mammals, we
>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct
ancestors of
>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first
evidence of a
>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and
elephants that
>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>
>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
aquatic
>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>
>> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
>> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
>> big a deal.
>
> Actually, it would be. That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
>
> Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
Proboscis monkeys are arboreal, but swim well and spend a great deal of
time in or near water. Japanese macaques are arboreal and terrestrial,
and spend a good amount of time in water, also swimming well. Neither
spends half their time in water or near, so they're not semi-aquatic, if
that's your definition. But the issue is if it would be a big deal to
discover a semi-aquatic human ancestor from sixty-five million years ago.
time in or near water. Japanese macaques are arboreal and terrestrial,
and spend a good amount of time in water, also swimming well. Neither
spends half their time in water or near, so they're not semi-aquatic, if
that's your definition. But the issue is if it would be a big deal to
discover a semi-aquatic human ancestor from sixty-five million years ago.
>> If you really want to blow your mind, google on hyraxes. If a small,
>> rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
>> elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
>> because it appears improbable.
>
> HUH??? Is Rolf a creationist? I never would have guessed it from his
> replies to me.
>> rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
>> elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
>> because it appears improbable.
>
> HUH??? Is Rolf a creationist? I never would have guessed it from his
> replies to me.
Against my better judgement, I'll inquire where I wrote that Rolf was a
creationist?
Mitchell Coffey
creationist?
Paul J Gans
Jun 16, 2013, 6:55:42 PM6/16/13
to
come to your aid.
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 12:02:16 AM6/17/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpl5f2$mat$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> 2) Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. A man in good shape
> can easily run one down. Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
> riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>
I think you are deluded. What is "good" shape? And what is "one"?
> 2) Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. A man in good shape
> can easily run one down. Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
> riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>
A chihuahua? Perhaps you should support this claim. I'd say that dogs
are good long distance runners. That a dog can be killed leashed to a
bike does not refute that. A human can be killed in the same manner.
Bikes can go much faster and longer than a runner can.
Will in New Haven
Jun 17, 2013, 9:52:45 AM6/17/13
to
On Jun 16, 3:59 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:kpihdb$esh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:kpihdb$esh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> >> >"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> >> >news:QIKdnUqCu7hKCSbM...@giganews.com...
> >> >> On 6/14/13 11:50 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> >> On 6/14/13 11:50 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
try conclusions could force it.
And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are probably
rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
--
Will in New Haven
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 17, 2013, 12:29:12 PM6/17/13
to
Mitchell
Paul J Gans
Jun 17, 2013, 12:36:57 PM6/17/13
to
Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> glands all over their bodies. ?Aquatic mammals do NOT have
>> ? ? mouth open while panting.
>>
>> 2) ?Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. ?A man in good shape
>> ? ? can easily run one down. ?Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
>> ? ? riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>You hang out with the wrong dogs. At distances approaching marathon
>length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
>wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
>around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
>run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
>medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
>try conclusions could force it.
>And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are probably
>rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
I'm sure that is so, but what was needed for survival was the
ability to run down a wounded antelope or the like. Once
protohumans spread to the savanahs hunting became a strenuous
pastime.
>> >> sweat glands all over their bodies.
>>
>> >> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
>> >> a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. ?In
>>
>> >> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
>> >> particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
>> >> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>>
>> >> The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
>> >> water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
>> >> past.
>>
>> >Dogs have few sweat glands, and are not used to cool. They are
>> >amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is fairly clear
>> >that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
>>
>> 1) ?Dogs cool via evaporation of saliva. ?Hard to swim with your
>> >> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>>
>> >> The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
>> >> water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
>> >> past.
>>
>> >Dogs have few sweat glands, and are not used to cool. They are
>> >amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is fairly clear
>> >that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
>>
>> ? ? mouth open while panting.
>>
>> 2) ?Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. ?A man in good shape
>> ? ? can easily run one down. ?Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
>> ? ? riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>You hang out with the wrong dogs. At distances approaching marathon
>length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
>wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
>around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
>run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
>medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
>try conclusions could force it.
>And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are probably
>rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
ability to run down a wounded antelope or the like. Once
protohumans spread to the savanahs hunting became a strenuous
pastime.
jillery
Jun 17, 2013, 1:08:10 PM6/17/13
to
IIUC African Wild Dogs and Arctic Wolves typically run down their prey
to exhaustion. But then I thought I recalled where these animals work
in relays.
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 2:50:52 PM6/17/13
to
"Will in New Haven" <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e31fd783-a1ec-4f07...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
And other factors are involved such as temperature, terrain and ground conditions.
But even if it were a truism that humans can outrun dogs, it would not mean that
dogs are "NOT good long distance runners".
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 3:02:34 PM6/17/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpndv9$74t$4...@reader1.panix.com...
recent past, and it isn't a daily marathon run. Using intelligence should probably
rate the most relevant trait in that department, combined with cooperative
strategies. And humans are good long distance runners not only because
of their ability to dispell heat via sweat glands, but possess several other
anatomical features that apes and other animals do not.
Will in New Haven
Jun 17, 2013, 3:51:11 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 17, 2:50 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:e31fd783-a1ec-4f07...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Good point. Otherwise we could only call the very best good.
> "Will in New Haven" <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:e31fd783-a1ec-4f07...@v2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Will in New Haven
Jun 17, 2013, 3:53:14 PM6/17/13
to
is a very poor strategy against wolves unless you are a pronghorn
(scientific name "whooshi'mgone")
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 5:39:47 PM6/17/13
to
"Will in New Haven" <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d1aed2cb-7cd1-4a6f...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
and another takes it's place, if the flight and pursuit is in a more or less continuous line
away from the start of the race.
>Running away
> is a very poor strategy against wolves unless you are a pronghorn
> (scientific name "whooshi'mgone")
>
try to evade by making comparitively short turns are succeptible to dogs working in
relays.
Paul J Gans
Jun 17, 2013, 7:25:52 PM6/17/13
to
The point is that sweat glands all over the body tends to
point away from an aquatic life for humans.
Roger Shrubber
Jun 17, 2013, 7:44:02 PM6/17/13
to
> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:kpndv9$74t$4...@reader1.panix.com...
Better than your prior statement which was too
close to a causal declaration. Glenn caught your
sloppiness and then added some confusion of his
own manufacture. He's got that first part of being
a pedant down but has trouble with the follow through.
Rather like an editor who can find all the faults
in the writing of others then commits them all
with a few novel errors in his own prose.
close to a causal declaration. Glenn caught your
sloppiness and then added some confusion of his
own manufacture. He's got that first part of being
a pedant down but has trouble with the follow through.
Rather like an editor who can find all the faults
in the writing of others then commits them all
with a few novel errors in his own prose.
jillery
Jun 17, 2013, 8:33:21 PM6/17/13
to
they catch. I have read that the hunting success rate for wolves is
less than 10%.
As for relays, there are at least two ways it can work: 1. by
positioning pack members along an expected escape route, and 2. by
forcing the prey back toward pack members that are jogging behind.
Wolves are known to use encirclement strategies.
As for pronghorn, a bit of trivia I read is that their running
abilities so outclass extant predators, the speculation is their
talents evolved to evade a superior predator that has since gone
extinct.
Paul J Gans
Jun 17, 2013, 9:48:12 PM6/17/13
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> ability to run down a wounded antelope or the like. ?Once
we had sweat glands all over our bodies?
As for Glenn's comments, I toyed with the notion of replying.
But I've never found that useful. Besides, as stated his
comments bolster my point that we ran and did not swim. But
I guess the aquatic ape will remain for ever and ever.
>> >> protohumans spread to the savanahs hunting became a strenuous
>> >> pastime.
>>
>> >So you say. Yet what we actually know is how humans have hunted in the
>> >recent past, and it isn't a daily marathon run. Using intelligence should probably
>> >rate the most relevant trait in that department, combined with cooperative
>> >strategies. And humans are good long distance runners not only because
>> >of their ability to dispell heat via sweat glands, but possess several other
>> >anatomical features that apes and other animals do not.
>>
>> Whatever.
>>
>> The point is that sweat glands all over the body tends to
>> point away from an aquatic life for humans.
>Better than your prior statement which was too
>close to a causal declaration. Glenn caught your
>sloppiness and then added some confusion of his
>own manufacture. He's got that first part of being
>a pedant down but has trouble with the follow through.
>Rather like an editor who can find all the faults
>in the writing of others then commits them all
>with a few novel errors in his own prose.
Now now. My first statement on this topic was to ask why
>> >> pastime.
>>
>> >So you say. Yet what we actually know is how humans have hunted in the
>> >recent past, and it isn't a daily marathon run. Using intelligence should probably
>> >rate the most relevant trait in that department, combined with cooperative
>> >strategies. And humans are good long distance runners not only because
>> >of their ability to dispell heat via sweat glands, but possess several other
>> >anatomical features that apes and other animals do not.
>>
>> Whatever.
>>
>> The point is that sweat glands all over the body tends to
>> point away from an aquatic life for humans.
>Better than your prior statement which was too
>close to a causal declaration. Glenn caught your
>sloppiness and then added some confusion of his
>own manufacture. He's got that first part of being
>a pedant down but has trouble with the follow through.
>Rather like an editor who can find all the faults
>in the writing of others then commits them all
>with a few novel errors in his own prose.
we had sweat glands all over our bodies?
As for Glenn's comments, I toyed with the notion of replying.
But I've never found that useful. Besides, as stated his
comments bolster my point that we ran and did not swim. But
I guess the aquatic ape will remain for ever and ever.
Roger Shrubber
Jun 17, 2013, 10:08:55 PM6/17/13
to
On Jun 18, 10:48�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
When I saw the quote
claim has the exact form that requires justification. Just
because it makes a good story isn't enough. The second
claim has additional problems. Was it an accidental increase
in sweat glands that allowed us to become endurance runners
or did the need to become endurance runners drive the
increase in sweat glands? Allowances need to be made for
casual comments in usenet postings but the two sentences
did and do grate on me.
One of Glenn's responses resonated with me. That itself
produced some dissonance but it's good to have that
happen now and then. Vision impaired sus scrufus and
acorns or not.
The problem with these quibbles is when people dig in
and refuse to admit that they erred or were lax in
their prose.
You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
helping with the communication.
Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. In
particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
are that only because of their sweat glands.
I saw a just-so story. It may well be true but as a naked
are that only because of their sweat glands.
claim has the exact form that requires justification. Just
because it makes a good story isn't enough. The second
claim has additional problems. Was it an accidental increase
in sweat glands that allowed us to become endurance runners
or did the need to become endurance runners drive the
increase in sweat glands? Allowances need to be made for
casual comments in usenet postings but the two sentences
did and do grate on me.
One of Glenn's responses resonated with me. That itself
produced some dissonance but it's good to have that
happen now and then. Vision impaired sus scrufus and
acorns or not.
The problem with these quibbles is when people dig in
and refuse to admit that they erred or were lax in
their prose.
You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
helping with the communication.
William Morse
Jun 18, 2013, 12:10:59 AM6/18/13
to
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 11:51:01 PM6/17/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpo5u0$6o5$3...@reader1.panix.com...
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 11:53:09 PM6/17/13
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:61273a87-65d6-41cb...@3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
be a good "follow through" here?
Glenn
Jun 17, 2013, 11:58:10 PM6/17/13
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:464297d9-a784-471c...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
at least in this case.
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 18, 2013, 12:53:56 AM6/18/13
to
Mitchell
Glenn
Jun 18, 2013, 2:09:16 AM6/18/13
to
"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kpoorq$bfo$1...@dont-email.me...
tending to point towards an aquatic life for dogs in the past.
jillery
Jun 18, 2013, 3:28:51 AM6/18/13
to
impression, that humans didn't get sweat glands because they needed
them. But before I replied that way, I looked more closely at what
Paul actually wrote, and he doesn't actually say that.
At most, one could criticize Paul's statement for overzealous
reductionism, that sweat glands are the only necessary and sufficient
condition for long-distance running in humans. But that isn't
relevant to Paul's actual point, that sweat glands are evidence
contrary to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>One of Glenn's responses resonated with me. That itself
>produced some dissonance but it's good to have that
>happen now and then. Vision impaired sus scrufus and
>acorns or not.
>
>The problem with these quibbles is when people dig in
>and refuse to admit that they erred or were lax in
>their prose.
issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
latter.
>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>helping with the communication.
pedantic side issues irrelevant to that substance. And by that, you
create yet another point to quibble about. See how easy that was?
alias Ernest Major
Jun 18, 2013, 3:29:29 AM6/18/13
to
On 18/06/2013 01:33, jillery wrote:
> As for pronghorn, a bit of trivia I read is that their running
> abilities so outclass extant predators, the speculation is their
> talents evolved to evade a superior predator that has since gone
> extinct.
The variation I heard is that that the speed allowed them to outsprint
> As for pronghorn, a bit of trivia I read is that their running
> abilities so outclass extant predators, the speculation is their
> talents evolved to evade a superior predator that has since gone
> extinct.
"Felis" trumani, and their stamina allowed them to outlast short-faced
bears.
--
alias Ernest Major
Roger Shrubber
Jun 18, 2013, 3:33:33 AM6/18/13
to
On Jun 18, 12:53�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Roger Shrubber" <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:61273a87-65d6-41cb...@3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
Glenn, you thrive on sewing confusion rather than
clearing it up. Rather than just complain about an
answer you don't like, you could explain why you
don't like it, how it might be partly correct, or what
a superior answer would be. But you don't. You just
toss out some snark like you did upthread. Now and
then, OK, but how often to you offer more or better?
Your comments on fords are pretty daft for example
and your post-modernism defense technically saves
you at the expense of saying anything useful for
anybody. I have no plans on engaging you in the
myriad ways to make things more tedious and confusing.
> "Roger Shrubber" <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:61273a87-65d6-41cb...@3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
clearing it up. Rather than just complain about an
answer you don't like, you could explain why you
don't like it, how it might be partly correct, or what
a superior answer would be. But you don't. You just
toss out some snark like you did upthread. Now and
then, OK, but how often to you offer more or better?
Your comments on fords are pretty daft for example
and your post-modernism defense technically saves
you at the expense of saying anything useful for
anybody. I have no plans on engaging you in the
myriad ways to make things more tedious and confusing.
Rolf
Jun 18, 2013, 5:00:59 AM6/18/13
to
"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:kpoorq$bfo$1...@dont-email.me...
aquatic animal, I agree.
That humans or proto-humans would have been anything like aqutic seems
rather unlikely. But I don't view a period of a semi-aquatic lifestyle
impossible if the environment made that crucial for survival.
No big deal.
If I had bothered to google elephants before writing the OP I would not have
referenced the elephant's aquatic past since I do not consider it relevant
in the context of human evolution.
> Mitchell
>
>
Glenn
Jun 18, 2013, 5:05:59 AM6/18/13
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0730432b-2c9b-44d0...@rh15g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
should, and for arguments you disagree with and think
are not useful. Very entertaining.
Arkalen
Jun 18, 2013, 6:46:08 AM6/18/13
to
Let's say that :
X = having sweat glands all over one's body
Y = having an aquatic past
The really relevant aspect of Paul's whole argument is the far upthread
: "Aquatic mammals do NOT have sweat glands all over their bodies."
In other words he's asserting "Y implies not-X". (the evolutionary
reasons humans *do* have sweat glands aren't really relevant to that;
the real thing you should dispute is whether being aquatic really
precludes having sweat glands all over one's body)
So Paul's argument is :
Y implies not-X
X is true
Therefore, Y isn't true.
That's a correct logical argument.
Your counter-argument about dogs says that if Paul's right, then not-X
should imply Y, which is of course the opposite of how implication
works. A implies B is equivalent to not-B implies not-A, not B implies A.
pnyikos
Jun 18, 2013, 9:12:37 AM6/18/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jun 15, 12:23�am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:17:17 -0700, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://img.timeinc.net/time/2012/influentialplaces/koshima.jpg
>
> >http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NgFUyQash5Y/T19jzQBXrBI/AAAAAAAAOzw/WuMUCXq...
>
> I also really liked these:
>
> http://www.doest-photography.com/bestanden/jdo_20090120_0345_2.jpg
>
> http://www.indianlandmtndogs.com/adventures/Swimming-%20Copper%20and%...
>
> --
> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Go back to peddling broccoli until you find out what "semi-aquatic"
means in the context of needing more efficient myoglobin.
Peter Nyikos
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:17:17 -0700, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:43:54 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
> ><nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
>
> >http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/12/ba/8a/capuchin-m...
> >On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:43:54 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
> ><nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
>
>
> >http://img.timeinc.net/time/2012/influentialplaces/koshima.jpg
>
> >http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NgFUyQash5Y/T19jzQBXrBI/AAAAAAAAOzw/WuMUCXq...
>
> I also really liked these:
>
> http://www.doest-photography.com/bestanden/jdo_20090120_0345_2.jpg
>
> http://www.indianlandmtndogs.com/adventures/Swimming-%20Copper%20and%...
>
> --
> � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Go back to peddling broccoli until you find out what "semi-aquatic"
means in the context of needing more efficient myoglobin.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Jun 18, 2013, 9:17:52 AM6/18/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Jun 15, 1:18�am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 8:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 8:43 AM, pnyikos wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:53 am, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/2013 3:41 AM, Rolf wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>
> >>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
> >>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
> >>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
> >>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
> >>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>
> >>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
> >>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
> >>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>
>
> >>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>
> >>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of mammals, we
> >>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct ancestors of
> >>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first evidence of a
> >>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and elephants that
> >>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>
> >>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows,
> >>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an aquatic
> >>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>
> >> The key phrase in that quote is "65 millions years ago." If sixty-five
> >> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
> >> big a deal.
>
> > Actually, it would be. �That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> > used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
>
> >> million years ago people had a semi-aquatic ancestor it wouldn't be that
> >> big a deal.
>
> > Actually, it would be. �That ancestor would be a primate, and we are
> > used to the idea of those primates being tree-dwellers.
>
> > Can you think of a single tree-dwelling semi-aquatic mammal?
>
>
> Proboscis monkeys are arboreal, but swim well and spend a great deal of
> time in or near water. Japanese macaques are arboreal and terrestrial,
> and spend a good amount of time in water, also swimming well. Neither
> spends half their time in water or near, so they're not semi-aquatic, if
> that's your definition. But the issue is if it would be a big deal to
> discover a semi-aquatic human ancestor from sixty-five million years ago.
>
> >> If you really want to blow your mind, google on hyraxes. If a small,
> >> rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
> >> elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
> >> because it appears improbable.
>
> > HUH??? �Is Rolf a creationist? �I never would have guessed it from his
> > replies to me.
>
> Against my better judgement, I'll inquire where I wrote that Rolf was a
> creationist?
You should have listened to your better judgment and not posed such an
> time in or near water. Japanese macaques are arboreal and terrestrial,
> and spend a good amount of time in water, also swimming well. Neither
> spends half their time in water or near, so they're not semi-aquatic, if
> that's your definition. But the issue is if it would be a big deal to
> discover a semi-aquatic human ancestor from sixty-five million years ago.
>
> >> If you really want to blow your mind, google on hyraxes. If a small,
> >> rabbit-like creature can share a common ancestor with sea cows and
> >> elephants, nothing in evolutionary science should be rejected just
> >> because it appears improbable.
>
> > HUH??? �Is Rolf a creationist? �I never would have guessed it from his
> > replies to me.
>
> Against my better judgement, I'll inquire where I wrote that Rolf was a
> creationist?
irrelevant question. Your question would only have been appropriate
had I NOT asked a question but instead posted something like "Nice to
know Rolf is a creationist."
But in answer to the question you would have asked, had you listened:
since Rolf is not a creationist, "nothing in evolutionary science
should be rejected just because it appears improbable." sticks out
like a sore thumb in the absence of creationists posting to this
thread.
Such primer-style preaching to the choir is a great rarity here in
talk.origins, and I suggest you follow the usual custom of just saying
things like this to creationists.
Peter Nyikos
Walter Bushell
Jun 18, 2013, 10:05:33 AM6/18/13
to
In article <kpndv9$74t$4...@reader1.panix.com>,
Case the animals in circles with new men stationed at strategic points.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 16, 3:59?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in
> >> >messagenews:kpihdb$esh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >> >> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> >> >> >news:QIKdnUqCu7hKCSbM...@giganews.com...
> >> >> >> On 6/14/13 11:50 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 16, 3:59?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in
> >> >messagenews:kpihdb$esh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >> >> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> >> >> >news:QIKdnUqCu7hKCSbM...@giganews.com...
> >> >> >> On 6/14/13 11:50 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> >> >>> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
> >>
> >> >> >>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of
> >> >> >>>> mammals, we
> >> >> >>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct
> >> >> >>>> ancestors
> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first
> >> >> >>>> evidence
> >> >> >>>> of a
> >> >> >>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and
> >> >> >>>> elephants
> >> >> >>>> that
> >> >> >>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
> >>
> >> >> >>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea
> >> >> >>>> cows,
> >> >> >>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
> >> >> >>>> aquatic
> >> >> >>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
> >>
> >> >> >>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
> >>
> >> >> >>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree of
> >> >> >>>> mammals, we
> >> >> >>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in extinct
> >> >> >>>> ancestors
> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the first
> >> >> >>>> evidence
> >> >> >>>> of a
> >> >> >>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and
> >> >> >>>> elephants
> >> >> >>>> that
> >> >> >>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
> >>
> >> >> >>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of modern sea
> >> >> >>>> cows,
> >> >> >>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some kind of an
> >> >> >>>> aquatic
> >> >> >>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
> >>
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Paul J Gans
Jun 18, 2013, 4:17:18 PM6/18/13
to
Roger Shrubber <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now now. ?My first statement on this topic was to ask why
>> comments bolster my point that we ran and did not swim. ?But
Having to run long distances in a warm if not hot climate
seems to me to favor the survival of those with more
sweat glands. That could be the evolutionary selection
feature. But I don't know of any mechanism that would
select for sweat glands that did not also work for apes.
I'd tie in the loss of copious body hair with this.
>One of Glenn's responses resonated with me. That itself
>produced some dissonance but it's good to have that
>happen now and then. Vision impaired sus scrufus and
>acorns or not.
>The problem with these quibbles is when people dig in
>and refuse to admit that they erred or were lax in
>their prose.
I am frequently lax in my prose. That's because when
in repose I relax.
>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>helping with the communication.
I plead guilty as charged.
>> we had sweat glands all over our bodies?
>>
>> As for Glenn's comments, I toyed with the notion of replying.
>> But I've never found that useful. ?Besides, as stated his
>>
>> As for Glenn's comments, I toyed with the notion of replying.
>> comments bolster my point that we ran and did not swim. ?But
>> I guess the aquatic ape will remain for ever and ever.
>When I saw the quote
> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
> a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. In
> particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>I saw a just-so story. It may well be true but as a naked
>claim has the exact form that requires justification. Just
>because it makes a good story isn't enough. The second
>claim has additional problems. Was it an accidental increase
>in sweat glands that allowed us to become endurance runners
>or did the need to become endurance runners drive the
>increase in sweat glands? Allowances need to be made for
>casual comments in usenet postings but the two sentences
>did and do grate on me.
I don't know. But I tend to think in terms of mechanisms.
>When I saw the quote
> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
> a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. In
> particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>I saw a just-so story. It may well be true but as a naked
>claim has the exact form that requires justification. Just
>because it makes a good story isn't enough. The second
>claim has additional problems. Was it an accidental increase
>in sweat glands that allowed us to become endurance runners
>or did the need to become endurance runners drive the
>increase in sweat glands? Allowances need to be made for
>casual comments in usenet postings but the two sentences
>did and do grate on me.
Having to run long distances in a warm if not hot climate
seems to me to favor the survival of those with more
sweat glands. That could be the evolutionary selection
feature. But I don't know of any mechanism that would
select for sweat glands that did not also work for apes.
I'd tie in the loss of copious body hair with this.
>One of Glenn's responses resonated with me. That itself
>produced some dissonance but it's good to have that
>happen now and then. Vision impaired sus scrufus and
>acorns or not.
>The problem with these quibbles is when people dig in
>and refuse to admit that they erred or were lax in
>their prose.
in repose I relax.
>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>helping with the communication.
Paul J Gans
Jun 18, 2013, 4:23:03 PM6/18/13
to
clearly are a member of the group that reasons by assertion.
I find such folks difficult to talk to.
Goodby.
Paul J Gans
Jun 18, 2013, 4:25:17 PM6/18/13
to
Glenn
Jun 18, 2013, 4:44:34 PM6/18/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpqfj7$kj2$3...@reader1.panix.com...
Paul J Gans
Jun 18, 2013, 4:45:15 PM6/18/13
to
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:08:55 -0700 (PDT), Roger Shrubber
><rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:08:55 -0700 (PDT), Roger Shrubber
><rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> we had sweat glands all over our bodies?
>>>
>>> As for Glenn's comments, I toyed with the notion of replying.
>>> But I've never found that useful. ?Besides, as stated his
>>>
>>> As for Glenn's comments, I toyed with the notion of replying.
>>> comments bolster my point that we ran and did not swim. ?But
humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
>>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>>helping with the communication.
>You conflate supporting a point of substance with digging in about
>pedantic side issues irrelevant to that substance. And by that, you
>create yet another point to quibble about. See how easy that was?
these discussions as the sort of thing that happens in
a pub with a bunch of folks sitting around a table. The
subject wanders hither and yon, and folks often bring up
issues that are not directly related to the initial
subject.
I admit that my friend is an expert in this, often dragging
in all sorts of things and subjects while avoiding any
direct response to the questions in the post he's responding
to. And I admit that that is both frustrating and upsetting.
But I'm not in any struggle with Roger. I regard the aquatic
human theory as totally dead. And so discussions about it
are mostly fun and not fraught with the need to measure
every word and to stick tightly to the subject.
That said, I thank you for noting that my statement above
claims only what it claimed and nothing wider.
Glenn
Jun 18, 2013, 5:34:49 PM6/18/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kpqgsr$kj2$7...@reader1.panix.com...
jillery
Jun 19, 2013, 12:46:03 AM6/19/13
to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:45:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
>>ISTM the problem with these quibbles is when people conflate separate
>>issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
>>of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
>>to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>>Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
>>latter.
>
>Well, I don't totally agree. I do not see how aquatic
>humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
>involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
>provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
>a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
>claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
And I totally agree. So I don't see where you don't totally agree.
>>>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>>>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>>>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>>>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>>>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>>>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>>>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>>>helping with the communication.
>
>
>>You conflate supporting a point of substance with digging in about
>>pedantic side issues irrelevant to that substance. And by that, you
>>create yet another point to quibble about. See how easy that was?
>
>No. You are being too single minded.
Thanks ever so much for that.
>I tend to regard
>these discussions as the sort of thing that happens in
>a pub with a bunch of folks sitting around a table. The
>subject wanders hither and yon, and folks often bring up
>issues that are not directly related to the initial
>subject.
Yes, pub discussions are fun. Talking past each other, not so much.
>I admit that my friend is an expert in this, often dragging
>in all sorts of things and subjects while avoiding any
>direct response to the questions in the post he's responding
>to. And I admit that that is both frustrating and upsetting.
>
>But I'm not in any struggle with Roger. I regard the aquatic
>human theory as totally dead. And so discussions about it
>are mostly fun and not fraught with the need to measure
>every word and to stick tightly to the subject.
>
>That said, I thank you for noting that my statement above
>claims only what it claimed and nothing wider.
I live for left-handed compliments. I regret that you interpreted
what I wrote as suggesting you were in a struggle with Roger.
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
>>ISTM the problem with these quibbles is when people conflate separate
>>issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
>>of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
>>to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>>Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
>>latter.
>
>Well, I don't totally agree. I do not see how aquatic
>humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
>involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
>provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
>a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
>claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
>>>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>>>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>>>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>>>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>>>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>>>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>>>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>>>helping with the communication.
>
>
>>You conflate supporting a point of substance with digging in about
>>pedantic side issues irrelevant to that substance. And by that, you
>>create yet another point to quibble about. See how easy that was?
>
>No. You are being too single minded.
>I tend to regard
>these discussions as the sort of thing that happens in
>a pub with a bunch of folks sitting around a table. The
>subject wanders hither and yon, and folks often bring up
>issues that are not directly related to the initial
>subject.
>I admit that my friend is an expert in this, often dragging
>in all sorts of things and subjects while avoiding any
>direct response to the questions in the post he's responding
>to. And I admit that that is both frustrating and upsetting.
>
>But I'm not in any struggle with Roger. I regard the aquatic
>human theory as totally dead. And so discussions about it
>are mostly fun and not fraught with the need to measure
>every word and to stick tightly to the subject.
>
>That said, I thank you for noting that my statement above
>claims only what it claimed and nothing wider.
what I wrote as suggesting you were in a struggle with Roger.
Will in New Haven
Jun 19, 2013, 2:35:45 PM6/19/13
to
lone predators. Certainly they catch a low percentage of the
_possible_ prey animals but they catch one animal or another quite
often.
>
> As for relays, there are at least two ways it can work: 1. by
> positioning pack members along an expected escape route, and 2. by
> forcing the prey back toward pack members that are jogging behind.
> Wolves are known to use encirclement strategies.
>
> As for pronghorn, a bit of trivia I read is that their running
> abilities so outclass extant predators, the speculation is their
> talents evolved to evade a superior predator that has since gone
> extinct
--
Will in New Haven
Paul J Gans
Jun 19, 2013, 3:28:45 PM6/19/13
to
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:45:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>>ISTM the problem with these quibbles is when people conflate separate
>>>issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
>>>of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
>>>to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>>>Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
>>>latter.
>>
>>Well, I don't totally agree. I do not see how aquatic
>>humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
>>involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
>>provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
>>a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
>>claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
>And I totally agree. So I don't see where you don't totally agree.
I don't totally agree with "... the problem with these quibbles
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:45:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>>ISTM the problem with these quibbles is when people conflate separate
>>>issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
>>>of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
>>>to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>>>Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
>>>latter.
>>
>>Well, I don't totally agree. I do not see how aquatic
>>humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
>>involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
>>provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
>>a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
>>claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
>And I totally agree. So I don't see where you don't totally agree.
is when people conflate separate issues, and so they end up talking
past each other."
Like most of us, I've been in many face-to-face conversations
past each other."
that circle around several points prior to coming to agreement.
>>>>You are likely broadly correct about the evidence of human
>>>>sweat glands, how it relates to endurance running,
>>>>what it implies about the aquatic ape hypothesis etc.
>>>>The only issue is in over-stating the case by overly
>>>>casual language. It's a discussion forum, not a journal.
>>>>Such language is expected. But digging in about it,
>>>>or not recognizing that aspect of the complaint isn't
>>>>helping with the communication.
>>
>>
>>>You conflate supporting a point of substance with digging in about
>>>pedantic side issues irrelevant to that substance. And by that, you
>>>create yet another point to quibble about. See how easy that was?
>>
>>No. You are being too single minded.
>Thanks ever so much for that.
issues" proof or at least an argument in support.
>>I tend to regard
>>these discussions as the sort of thing that happens in
>>a pub with a bunch of folks sitting around a table. The
>>subject wanders hither and yon, and folks often bring up
>>issues that are not directly related to the initial
>>subject.
>Yes, pub discussions are fun. Talking past each other, not so much.
folks here they are usually made aware of that and deal with
it.
The main example of course is Pierretete, who likes to deal
with side issues to avoid responding to direct questions.
>>I admit that my friend is an expert in this, often dragging
>>in all sorts of things and subjects while avoiding any
>>direct response to the questions in the post he's responding
>>to. And I admit that that is both frustrating and upsetting.
>>But I'm not in any struggle with Roger. I regard the aquatic
>>human theory as totally dead. And so discussions about it
>>are mostly fun and not fraught with the need to measure
>>every word and to stick tightly to the subject.
>>
>>That said, I thank you for noting that my statement above
>>claims only what it claimed and nothing wider.
>I live for left-handed compliments. I regret that you interpreted
>what I wrote as suggesting you were in a struggle with Roger.
a more adroit person.
Paul J Gans
Jun 19, 2013, 4:04:05 PM6/19/13
to
Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 17, 8:33?pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:53:14 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Jun 17, 1:08?pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:52:45 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>>
>> >> <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:52:45 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>>
>> >> <willreich...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> sweat glands all over their bodies.
>>
>> >> >> >> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
>> >> >> >> a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. ?In
>>
>> >> >> >> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
>> >> >> >> particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
>> >> >> >> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>>
>> >> >> >> The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
>> >> >> >> water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
>> >> >> >> past.
>>
>> >> >> >Dogs have few sweat glands, and are not used to cool. They are
>> >> >> >amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is fairly clear
>> >> >> >that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
>>
>> >> >> >> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>>
>> >> >> >> The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
>> >> >> >> water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
>> >> >> >> past.
>>
>> >> >> >Dogs have few sweat glands, and are not used to cool. They are
>> >> >> >amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is fairly clear
>> >> >> >that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
>>
>> >> >> 1) ?Dogs cool via evaporation of saliva. ?Hard to swim with your
>> >> >> ? ? mouth open while panting.
>>
>> >> >> 2) ?Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. ?A man in good shape
>> >> >> ? ? can easily run one down. ?Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
>> >> >> ? ? mouth open while panting.
>>
>> >> >> 2) ?Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. ?A man in good shape
>> >> >> ? ? riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>>
>> >> >You hang out with the wrong dogs. At distances approaching marathon
>> >> >length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
>> >> >wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
>> >> >around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
>> >> >run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
>> >> >medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
>> >> >try conclusions could force it.
>>
>> >> >And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are probably
>> >> >rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
>>
>> >> I was thinking along similar lines when Paul first mentioned this.
>> >> IIUC African Wild Dogs and Arctic Wolves typically run down their prey
>> >> to exhaustion. ?But then I thought I recalled where these animals work
>> >> >You hang out with the wrong dogs. At distances approaching marathon
>> >> >length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
>> >> >wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
>> >> >around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
>> >> >run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
>> >> >medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
>> >> >try conclusions could force it.
>>
>> >> >And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are probably
>> >> >rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
>>
>> >> I was thinking along similar lines when Paul first mentioned this.
>> >> IIUC African Wild Dogs and Arctic Wolves typically run down their prey
>> >> in relays
>>
>> >Even in relays you have to get from point A to point B. Running away
>> >is a very poor strategy against wolves unless you are a pronghorn
>> >(scientific name "whooshi'mgone")
>>
>> Running away works just fine for most animals, except for the ones
>> they catch. ?I have read that the hunting success rate for wolves is
>>
>> >Even in relays you have to get from point A to point B. Running away
>> >is a very poor strategy against wolves unless you are a pronghorn
>> >(scientific name "whooshi'mgone")
>>
>> Running away works just fine for most animals, except for the ones
>> less than 10%.
>That isn't what I've read. That sounds more like the success rate for
>lone predators. Certainly they catch a low percentage of the
>_possible_ prey animals but they catch one animal or another quite
>often.
>>
>> As for relays, there are at least two ways it can work: 1. by
>> positioning pack members along an expected escape route, and 2. by
>> forcing the prey back toward pack members that are jogging behind.
>> Wolves are known to use encirclement strategies.
>>
>> As for pronghorn, a bit of trivia I read is that their running
>> abilities so outclass extant predators, the speculation is their
>> talents evolved to evade a superior predator that has since gone
>> extinct
>The North American cheetah.
Yeah, but it doesn't play by the rules.
>That isn't what I've read. That sounds more like the success rate for
>lone predators. Certainly they catch a low percentage of the
>_possible_ prey animals but they catch one animal or another quite
>often.
>>
>> As for relays, there are at least two ways it can work: 1. by
>> positioning pack members along an expected escape route, and 2. by
>> forcing the prey back toward pack members that are jogging behind.
>> Wolves are known to use encirclement strategies.
>>
>> As for pronghorn, a bit of trivia I read is that their running
>> abilities so outclass extant predators, the speculation is their
>> talents evolved to evade a superior predator that has since gone
>> extinct
>The North American cheetah.
jillery
Jun 19, 2013, 4:29:31 PM6/19/13
to
enough animals to survive. A low success rate would simply mean they
have to spend more time hunting.
jillery
Jun 19, 2013, 8:09:34 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
weren't talking past each other. I don't consider "circling around
several points" the same as "conflating separate issues". Why do you?
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:45:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>[...]
>
>>>>ISTM the problem with these quibbles is when people conflate separate
>>>>issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
>>>>of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
>>>>to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>>>>Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
>>>>latter.
>>>
>>>Well, I don't totally agree. I do not see how aquatic
>>>humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
>>>involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
>>>provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
>>>a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
>>>claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
>
>
>>And I totally agree. So I don't see where you don't totally agree.
>
>I don't totally agree with "... the problem with these quibbles
>is when people conflate separate issues, and so they end up talking
>past each other."
>
>Like most of us, I've been in many face-to-face conversations
>that circle around several points prior to coming to agreement.
Since they came to agreement, I take that as evidence the participants
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:45:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
>><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>[...]
>
>>>>ISTM the problem with these quibbles is when people conflate separate
>>>>issues, and so they end up talking past each other. The relationship
>>>>of sweat glands to long-distance running is substantially irrelevant
>>>>to the relationship of sweat glands to an aquatic evolutionary past.
>>>>Arguing the former really makes no difference to the veracity of the
>>>>latter.
>>>
>>>Well, I don't totally agree. I do not see how aquatic
>>>humans living mainly in the water would fix a mutation
>>>involving sweat glands. As I understand it, sweating
>>>provides a primary way to cool the body and secondarily,
>>>a way to get rid of excess water. That is why I
>>>claim that they are evidence against an aquatic past.
>
>
>>And I totally agree. So I don't see where you don't totally agree.
>
>I don't totally agree with "... the problem with these quibbles
>is when people conflate separate issues, and so they end up talking
>past each other."
>
>Like most of us, I've been in many face-to-face conversations
>that circle around several points prior to coming to agreement.
weren't talking past each other. I don't consider "circling around
several points" the same as "conflating separate issues". Why do you?
Paul J Gans
Jun 19, 2013, 9:30:09 PM6/19/13
to
the same effect.
jillery
Jun 20, 2013, 10:38:46 AM6/20/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:30:09 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
And the actual effect depends on whether the conversants act in good
faith or sophistry.
faith or sophistry.
Paul J Gans
Jun 20, 2013, 7:12:36 PM6/20/13
to
jillery
Jun 21, 2013, 1:12:21 AM6/21/13
to
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:12:36 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
Yeppers. Beer tends to discourage sophistry.
Walter Bushell
Jun 22, 2013, 12:18:47 PM6/22/13
to
In article <g3o7s8lb7gceau6q2...@4ax.com>,
There isn't enough beer in the world to even get the sophists here to
renounce sophistry.
renounce sophistry.
Mitchell Coffey
Jun 23, 2013, 1:23:53 AM6/23/13
to
a limited education outside of mathematics, thus explaining your
difficulty understanding English. I refer everyone one, by way of
example, to your inability to understand, even after it was explained to
you numerous times, Paul's simple, quotidian insult of your fellow
mysogynist and homophobe, Prawnster. You're a fool to rely on your own
reading comprehension. But as you're a monomaniac, you continue to do so.
> But in answer to the question you would have asked, had you listened:
> since Rolf is not a creationist, "nothing in evolutionary science
> should be rejected just because it appears improbable." sticks out
> like a sore thumb in the absence of creationists posting to this
> thread.
> Such primer-style preaching to the choir is a great rarity here in
> talk.origins, and I suggest you follow the usual custom of just saying
> things like this to creationists.
reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
improbable. Idiot.
Mitchell Coffey
jillery
Jun 23, 2013, 5:13:46 AM6/23/13
to
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 12:18:47 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
You misunderstand. If it were treated like driving, people would
assign a designated sophist.
wrote:
assign a designated sophist.
Walter Bushell
Jun 23, 2013, 6:28:33 AM6/23/13
to
In article <kq60fm$p2a$5...@dont-email.me>,
myself.
Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jesus you're stupid. You evidently don't understand that one cannot
> reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
> improbable. Idiot.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
Oh, yes it's possible. I've not only seen it done, but I have done it
> Jesus you're stupid. You evidently don't understand that one cannot
> reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
> improbable. Idiot.
>
> Mitchell Coffey
myself.
Free Lunch
Jun 23, 2013, 9:51:41 AM6/23/13
to
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 06:28:33 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
>In article <kq60fm$p2a$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jesus you're stupid. You evidently don't understand that one cannot
>> reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
>> improbable. Idiot.
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
>Oh, yes it's possible. I've not only seen it done, but I have done it
>myself.
Bought a lottery ticket?
wrote in talk.origins:
>In article <kq60fm$p2a$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jesus you're stupid. You evidently don't understand that one cannot
>> reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
>> improbable. Idiot.
>>
>> Mitchell Coffey
>
>Oh, yes it's possible. I've not only seen it done, but I have done it
>myself.
Paul J Gans
Jun 23, 2013, 4:06:19 PM6/23/13
to
jackpot gets over $200 million we sometimes buy a $1 ticket and
then sit around for an hour or so after dinner imagining what we'd
do with the money
You can't have that much fun for a dollar in a pub, movie theater,
or amusement park.
Glenn
Jun 23, 2013, 6:55:10 PM6/23/13
to
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kq7kfr$8br$4...@reader2.panix.com...
what you'd do with the money doesn't require a purchase.
Paul J Gans
Jun 23, 2013, 7:47:39 PM6/23/13
to
William Morse
Jun 23, 2013, 11:14:16 PM6/23/13
to
On 06/18/2013 12:53 AM, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
>> news:kpo5u0$6o5$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> news:kpndv9$74t$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>>> ? ? riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>>
> Yes it does.
>
> Mitchell
>
>
I thin Glenn is looking for the being-hit-on-the-head lessons :-)
>> news:kpo5u0$6o5$3...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>> news:kpndv9$74t$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> Will in New Haven <willre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 16, 3:59?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> messagenews:kpihdb$esh$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>>>>>> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
>>>>>>>>>> news:QIKdnUqCu7hKCSbM...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/13 11:50 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrog...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
>>>>>>>>>> news:QIKdnUqCu7hKCSbM...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/13 11:50 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rolf <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinct ancestors
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elephants
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern sea cows,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aquatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130613142812.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "By mapping this molecular signature onto the family tree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of mammals, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were able to reconstruct the muscle oxygen stores in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinct ancestors
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> today's diving mammals. We were even able to report the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> common amphibious ancestor of modern sea cows, hyraxes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elephants
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lived in shallow African waters some 65 million years ago."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we can believe in a "common amphibious ancestor of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern sea cows,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hyraxes and elephants", maybe the hypothesis about some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aquatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phase in the evolution of man is not so improbable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do we have sweat glands all over our bodies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it would be too weird to have them all over someone
>>>>>>>>>>> elses body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LO(L)vely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DJT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually folks, humans are relatively unusual in having sweat
>>>>>>>>> glands all over their bodies. ?Aquatic mammals do NOT have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it would be too weird to have them all over someone
>>>>>>>>>>> elses body.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LO(L)vely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DJT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually folks, humans are relatively unusual in having sweat
>>>>>>>>> sweat glands all over their bodies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
>>>>>>>>> a survival benefit in the ecosystem in which they lived. ?In
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Humans have sweat glands all over their bodies because it was
>>>>>>>>> particular, humans are amazing long distance runners and they
>>>>>>>>> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
>>>>>>>>> water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
>>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dogs have few sweat glands, and are not used to cool. They are
>>>>>>>> amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is
>>>>>>>> fairly clear
>>>>>>>> that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are that only because of their sweat glands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The result is that it is fairly clear that humans were not
>>>>>>>>> water dwelling animals in the recent (evolutionarily speaking)
>>>>>>>>> past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dogs have few sweat glands, and are not used to cool. They are
>>>>>>>> amazing long distance runners, though. The result is that it is
>>>>>>>> fairly clear
>>>>>>>> that dogs were water dwelling animals in the recent past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) ?Dogs cool via evaporation of saliva. ?Hard to swim with your
>>>>>>> ? ? mouth open while panting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) ?Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. ?A man in good shape
>>>>>>> ? ? can easily run one down. ?Indeed the sometimes seen habit of
>>>>>>> ? ? mouth open while panting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) ?Dogs are NOT good long distance runners. ?A man in good shape
>>>>>>> ? ? riding a bike while leading a dog on a leash can kill the dog.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You hang out with the wrong dogs. At distances approaching marathon
>>>>>> length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
>>>>>> wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
>>>>>> around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
>>>>>> run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
>>>>>> medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
>>>>>> try conclusions could force it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You hang out with the wrong dogs. At distances approaching marathon
>>>>>> length a man can run down virtually any animal. However, dogs and
>>>>>> wolves are great distance runners if we are talking about distances
>>>>>> around five miles or so. In fact, while the "man in good shape" could
>>>>>> run down the wolves he could not _escape_ them or well-conditioned
>>>>>> medium-sized dogs without a huge head start. Whichever side wanted to
>>>>>> try conclusions could force it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, of course, men in the kind of shape to run down dogs are
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> rarer than dogs in the kind of shape to run down men.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that is so, but what was needed for survival was the
>>>>> ability to run down a wounded antelope or the like. Once
>>>>> protohumans spread to the savanahs hunting became a strenuous
>>>>> pastime.
>>>>>
>>>> So you say. Yet what we actually know is how humans have hunted in the
>>>> recent past, and it isn't a daily marathon run. Using intelligence
>>>> should probably
>>>> rate the most relevant trait in that department, combined with
>>>> cooperative
>>>> strategies. And humans are good long distance runners not only because
>>>> of their ability to dispell heat via sweat glands, but possess
>>>> several other
>>>> anatomical features that apes and other animals do not.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> The point is that sweat glands all over the body tends to
>>> point away from an aquatic life for humans.
>>>
>> No it doesn't.
>>>>> pastime.
>>>>>
>>>> So you say. Yet what we actually know is how humans have hunted in the
>>>> recent past, and it isn't a daily marathon run. Using intelligence
>>>> should probably
>>>> rate the most relevant trait in that department, combined with
>>>> cooperative
>>>> strategies. And humans are good long distance runners not only because
>>>> of their ability to dispell heat via sweat glands, but possess
>>>> several other
>>>> anatomical features that apes and other animals do not.
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> The point is that sweat glands all over the body tends to
>>> point away from an aquatic life for humans.
>>>
>>
> Yes it does.
>
> Mitchell
>
>
I thin Glenn is looking for the being-hit-on-the-head lessons :-)
Walter Bushell
Jun 23, 2013, 10:37:44 PM6/23/13
to
In article <kq890...@news1.newsguy.com>,
William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I thin Glenn is looking for the being-hit-on-the-head lessons :-)
A clue by 4?
> I thin Glenn is looking for the being-hit-on-the-head lessons :-)
Glenn
Jun 23, 2013, 11:26:18 PM6/23/13
to
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:kq890...@news1.newsguy.com...
Paul J Gans
Jun 24, 2013, 12:56:25 PM6/24/13
to
seems more to be one of those who argues by assertion.
William Morse
Jun 25, 2013, 11:45:58 PM6/25/13
to
visualization to an impossible outcome. And he is buying the ticket when
the jackpot gets high enough because at that point the net payout of
buying a ticket starts to approach 1. You may not be correct about the
motivation for most people buying tickets,
I have seen an analysis indicating that in many cases the odds of
getting hurt in a traffic accident driving to buy a lottery ticket are
greater than the odds of winning the jackpot, but I can't say that I
have evaluated the analysis in detail.
Glenn
Jun 25, 2013, 11:14:32 PM6/25/13
to
"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:kqdjj...@news6.newsguy.com...
> On 06/23/2013 06:55 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >
> > "Paul J Gans"<gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kq7kfr$8br$4...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 06:28:33 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
> >>> wrote in talk.origins:
> >>
> >>>> In article<kq60fm$p2a$5...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> Mitchell Coffey<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jesus you're stupid. You evidently don't understand that one cannot
> >>>>> reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
> >>>>> improbable. Idiot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Coffey
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, yes it's possible. I've not only seen it done, but I have done it
> >>>> myself.
> >>
> >>> Bought a lottery ticket?
> >>
> >> Buying a lottery ticket is not necessarily irrational. When the
> >> jackpot gets over $200 million we sometimes buy a $1 ticket and
> >> then sit around for an hour or so after dinner imagining what we'd
> >> do with the money
> >>
> >> You can't have that much fun for a dollar in a pub, movie theater,
> >> or amusement park.
> >>
> > That isn't the reason people buy tickets, and sitting around imagining
> > what you'd do with the money doesn't require a purchase.
> >
> Actually, in my experience it is rather difficult to give a satisfactory
> visualization to an impossible outcome.
I don't know what you mean by "satisfactory"; sitting around talking
> >
> > "Paul J Gans"<gan...@panix.com> wrote in message news:kq7kfr$8br$4...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 06:28:33 -0400, Walter Bushell<pr...@panix.com>
> >>> wrote in talk.origins:
> >>
> >>>> In article<kq60fm$p2a$5...@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> Mitchell Coffey<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jesus you're stupid. You evidently don't understand that one cannot
> >>>>> reject where fact and logic leads just because it appears to you
> >>>>> improbable. Idiot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Coffey
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, yes it's possible. I've not only seen it done, but I have done it
> >>>> myself.
> >>
> >>> Bought a lottery ticket?
> >>
> >> Buying a lottery ticket is not necessarily irrational. When the
> >> jackpot gets over $200 million we sometimes buy a $1 ticket and
> >> then sit around for an hour or so after dinner imagining what we'd
> >> do with the money
> >>
> >> You can't have that much fun for a dollar in a pub, movie theater,
> >> or amusement park.
> >>
> > That isn't the reason people buy tickets, and sitting around imagining
> > what you'd do with the money doesn't require a purchase.
> >
> Actually, in my experience it is rather difficult to give a satisfactory
> visualization to an impossible outcome.
about what you'll do with the money is not winning the lottery.
But we all dream about what we want to happen, and talk about it.
Safe to say it doesn't require the purchase of a ticket.
>And he is buying the ticket when
> the jackpot gets high enough because at that point the net payout of
> buying a ticket starts to approach 1.
>You may not be correct about the
> motivation for most people buying tickets,
>
> I have seen an analysis indicating that in many cases the odds of
> getting hurt in a traffic accident driving to buy a lottery ticket are
> greater than the odds of winning the jackpot, but I can't say that I
> have evaluated the analysis in detail.
>
I wouldn't dispute that, but then there is no reason to.
> I have seen an analysis indicating that in many cases the odds of
> getting hurt in a traffic accident driving to buy a lottery ticket are
> greater than the odds of winning the jackpot, but I can't say that I
> have evaluated the analysis in detail.
>
0 new messages