More evidence for Aquatic Ape

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

I swear, as a kid, I remember doing this:

https://www.vspdirect.com/vision-hub/about-vision-underwater

: Just like walking, riding a bike, or learning a new language, training
: your eyes to see underwater can improve your vision underwater.
: Although studies show that only children can be trained to see
: underwater.

Supposedly this is someone that all humans can learn, at least as
children.

We just kind of... I dunno. You try to see and then you do. That's the
only way I can explain it. It's like the urge to see underwater signals
the eyes automatically. Or it doesn't. I imagine it's like tossing the
baby bird out of the nest and it flies. Or it doesn't... plop.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/629720527320252416

[Pandora]

On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 21:11:53 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is lucky in love AND
money <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I swear, as a kid, I remember doing this:
>
>https://www.vspdirect.com/vision-hub/about-vision-underwater
>
>: Just like walking, riding a bike, or learning a new language, training
>: your eyes to see underwater can improve your vision underwater.
>: Although studies show that only children can be trained to see
>: underwater.

It also says: "Did you know our eyes require us to use half of the
brain in order to see?"
In reality the primary and secondary visual areas (V1 and V2),
corresponding to Brodmann area 17 and 18, only occupy part of the
occipital lobe around the calcarine sulcus. On that basis you could
say that we use less than 25% of the brain in order to see. When you
also include associative visual cortex (V3, V4, V5), Brodmann area 19,
you might approach 25%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area

>Supposedly this is someone that all humans can learn, at least as
>children.

There are many things humans can be trained to do that we were not
evolved to do. In this case it's a matter of pupil constriction and
strong accommodation, which in children has a range of about 15
dioptres.

"Seeing well underwater is not an easy task for a human being. Our
eyes, being adapted to the terrestrial environment, lose more than
two-thirds of their refractive power when immersed in water (Land,
1987). These two-thirds—or roughly 43 dioptres (D)—can be partly
compensated for by accommodation, but never completely. High
underwater acuity can only be achieved by using a diving mask that
reintroduces the air-cornea interface."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698906002367

That argues strongly against a wet ape.

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zondag 20 september 2020 om 06:11:54 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is lucky in love AND money:

> I swear, as a kid, I remember doing this:

In freshwater or seawater or both?

> https://www.vspdirect.com/vision-hub/about-vision-underwater
> : Just like walking, riding a bike, or learning a new language, training
> : your eyes to see underwater can improve your vision underwater.
> : Although studies show that only children can be trained to see
> : underwater.
> Supposedly this is someone that all humans can learn, at least as
> children.

Yes, see e.g. Moken children.

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

Pandora wrote:

> There are many things humans can be trained to do that we were not
> evolved to do. In this case it's a matter of pupil constriction and
> strong accommodation, which in children has a range of about 15
> dioptres.

Nobody trained me. I recall, as a kid, trying to see and then suddenly
everything came into focus. That's all.

> "Seeing well underwater is not an easy task for a human being. Our
> eyes, being adapted to the terrestrial environment, lose more than
> two-thirds of their refractive power when immersed in water (Land,
> 1987). These two-thirds—or roughly 43 dioptres (D)—can be partly
> compensated for by accommodation, but never completely. High
> underwater acuity can only be achieved by using a diving mask that
> reintroduces the air-cornea interface."
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698906002367

> That argues strongly against a wet ape.

No it doesn't. Besides the fact that you're confusing Aquatic Ape for "Sea
Monkeys"...

Humans don't see well AT ALL, not compared to many predators.

We don't smell well at all.

This is perfect for what Aquatic Ape actually needed: Being able to sea
the bottom even during high tide. They weren't writing books, they
were collecting food.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/629811757899268096

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM is lucky in love AND money:
>
> > I swear, as a kid, I remember doing this:
>
> In freshwater or seawater or both?

Lol! The first time I remember doing it was in a swimming pool.
A public swimming pool -- MDC -- in Brighton Massachusetts.

(part of Boston)

NOT a good idea in a chlorinated environment, as it stings the
eyes...






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/629811757899268096

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zondag 20 september 2020 om 22:36:57 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyQFDp1KbbY

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zondag 20 september 2020 om 23:25:04 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is lucky in love AND money:

> littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > JTEM is lucky in love AND money:
> >
> > > I swear, as a kid, I remember doing this:
> >
> > In freshwater or seawater or both?
> Lol! The first time I remember doing it was in a swimming pool.
> A public swimming pool -- MDC -- in Brighton Massachusetts.
>
> (part of Boston)
>
> NOT a good idea in a chlorinated environment, as it stings the
> eyes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyQFDp1KbbY

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyQFDp1KbbY

Lol! The video is a little too nice, claiming that paleo anthropology
sucks because it looks at bones. No, honey, it sucks because it's
politics -- a social program at best -- and not science. There's no
actual career path for paleo anthropologists outside of academia
and government "Science" grants, so if you're not extremely well
connected, or excellent at applying for grants or just plain rich
and don't have to worry about money then there's no place for you
inside paleo anthropology.

What are you going to do, use your paycheck from Starbucks to
finance REAL science?

No, sorry, paleo anthropology sucks BECAUSE it's politics, and
BECAUSE it's politics the last thing that can ever help you succeed
is any talent within the actual field.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/629811757899268096

[Pandora]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:22:53 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is lucky in love AND
money <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pandora wrote:
>
>> There are many things humans can be trained to do that we were not
>> evolved to do. In this case it's a matter of pupil constriction and
>> strong accommodation, which in children has a range of about 15
>> dioptres.
>
>Nobody trained me. I recall, as a kid, trying to see and then suddenly
>everything came into focus. That's all.
>
>> "Seeing well underwater is not an easy task for a human being. Our
>> eyes, being adapted to the terrestrial environment, lose more than
>> two-thirds of their refractive power when immersed in water (Land,
>> 1987). These two-thirds—or roughly 43 dioptres (D)—can be partly
>> compensated for by accommodation, but never completely. High
>> underwater acuity can only be achieved by using a diving mask that
>> reintroduces the air-cornea interface."
>>
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698906002367
>
>> That argues strongly against a wet ape.
>
>No it doesn't. Besides the fact that you're confusing Aquatic Ape for "Sea
>Monkeys"...
>
>Humans don't see well AT ALL, not compared to many predators.

Sure, we don't have eagle eyes, as we never were aerial predators, but
as primates we have much better vision above than below the surface of
the water.

>We don't smell well at all.

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146

>This is perfect for what Aquatic Ape actually needed: Being able to sea
>the bottom even during high tide. They weren't writing books, they
>were collecting food.

All the more reason to stay focussed, in order to distinguish the
edible from the inedible. You don't want to pick up something like a
Conus textile.

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

Pandora wrote:

> Sure, we don't have eagle eyes, as we never were aerial predators, but
> as primates we have much better vision above than below the surface of
> the water.

You're not saying anything.

Better than... what? How is it better? Because they didn't need this
vision to see sharks at 100 yards or read the fine print on a
contract. So distance is meaningless, even a wide field of vision isn't
necessary. They just had to see what they were grabbing.

> >We don't smell well at all.
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146

There's literally nothing there but claims.

What were the tests, for example?

The "cite" is a meta study which isn't a study at all.

A "Meta Study" is when someone looks at a whole bunch of
real studies that DO NOT say something and conclude that
they say it.

I mean, it's not necessarily invalid, they can be quite useful
but, as in this case, there's no ready means for judging their
interpretations. WORST is the absent methodology! A study
CAN find humans reacting as "Well" as rats to an odor but
what are the circumstances? WHY do they think this is?

Rats occupy a very different niche than humans if they reacted
as we do to odors related to a sewer environment, for example,
or a garbage dump, they couldn't live there. For us though, those
same odors signal DANGER.

> >This is perfect for what Aquatic Ape actually needed: Being able to sea
> >the bottom even during high tide. They weren't writing books, they
> >were collecting food.

> All the more reason to stay focussed

Dude, have you ever experienced this? That is the very point: Vision
that is NOT blurry underwater. SO you don't grab something that will
cut you, or poison you or even SO you can grab that crab/lobster/etc
and not get claws biting into you.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/629893525558935552

[Primum Sapienti]

Pandora wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 14:22:53 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is lucky in love AND
> money <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

To focus on one thing...

>> We don't smell well at all.
>
> https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146
>

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/human-nose-can-detect-trillion-smells
Human Nose Can Detect a Trillion Smells

[C. H. Engelbrecht]

There goes all the sniffer dogs...

[JTEM is lucky in love AND money]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Human Nose Can Detect a Trillion Smells

Okay. We don't smell very well.

A turkey vulture can smell a dead animal a mile away.

Bears are so far beyond us that it's no comparison. Dogs?
Hello? Hound dogs? Even Beagles or police trained German
shepards?

Rhinos have ridiculously good smell. The largest piece of
their brain is for processing odors.

Humans are not particularly good at smelling. Or seeing. Or
hearing. But as far as seeing goes, humans can learn to see
clearly underwater, enough so as to not grab the wrong thing,
or to grab something potentially dangerous in the right place.

This is something humans can do, and it's apparently innate,
at least in childhood.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/630631232496107520