Excellent new theory concerning the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

14 views
Skip to first unread message

John Houser

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 8:51:26 AM10/14/02
to
Hello, I am JOhn HOuser and I am sure I shall enjoy my talk at this
newsgroup. It seems to me that the main reason that humans must have
evolved in the water rather than the savanah was because they would
probably have got terribly sunburnt. You see, I may be no scientist,
but this is as plain to see as the nose on my face, and the ignorance
that has been shown towards the theroy in this newsgroup. Why can't
people be more open to people like Elaine Morgans work when evidence
such as I stated above started glaringly at the face of all here?

The simplest ideas can sometimes be the largest,
Johnathon Houser

Dana Strausser

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 10:26:27 AM10/14/02
to
"John Houser" <jho...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:700e727.02101...@posting.google.com...

Yes, you are no scientist.


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 14, 2002, 4:05:58 PM10/14/02
to
> Yes, you are no scientist.

Says Strausser, the great scientist...

Marc Verhaegen, Pierre-François Puech, Stephen Munro 2002
"Aquarboreal ancestors?"
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-217

New evidence confirms the idea that human ancestors were not
savannah-dwellers at all, but instead became bipedal in swampy forests, and
evolved during the Ice Ages into coastal omnivores along the Indian Ocean.

... Instead of the traditional savannah-dwelling hypothesis, we argue that a
combination of fossil & comparative data now provides evidence showing that
(1) the earliest hominids waded and climbed in swampy or coastal forests in
Africa-Arabia and partly fed on hard-shelled fruits and molluscs;
(2) their australopith descendants in Africa had a comparable locomotion but
generally preferred a diet including wetland plants;
(3) the Homo descendants migrated to or remained near the Indian Ocean
coasts, lost most climbing abilities, and exploited waterside resources.

Strausser, instead of making empty comments, just give 1 scientific argument
why this recent view of hominid evolution would be wrong.
(TREE is a scientific journal as you might know... yes, peer-reviewed if
some of your friends ask :-D)

pete

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 3:27:47 PM10/15/02
to

Terrible theory.
Water only just barely attenuates ultra violet radiation.
Sunburn on cloudy days is common.
Sunburn on snorkeling swimmers is common.
The worst sunburn that I ever got in my life
was while snorkeling in Hawaii.
The water kept me cool, so I couldn't feel it, while it was happening.
The next day, the skin on both of my shoulder blades, blisttered,
cracked and bled. Second degree burn.

http://www.b-v-i.com/Charter/B-V-ISailingSchool/snorkeling.htm
>> Some covering is desirable simply to protect against abrasion,
>> sunburn and for warmth in the water.

http://www.ambergriscaye.com/reefcrawl/
>> Many denizens of this reef system live in "caves"
>> (the coral is of very "porous" architecture)
>> -- so from ten in the morning to 4 in evening --
>> every one is sleeping in their cave.
>> Nothing much to see and real sunburn times for the poor
>> snorkeler trying to get some eye candy.

--
pete

Craig

unread,
Oct 15, 2002, 9:40:01 PM10/15/02
to
jho...@cheerful.com (John Houser) wrote in message news:<700e727.02101...@posting.google.com>...

Hi Jonathan,

If the subject interests you, come over to the Aquatic Ape forum,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/messages We might not accept
your sunburn hypothesis (sounds unlikely to me, personally), but
we won't spit on you for it, and you'll find some other ideas.

Craig
www.PassionateApe.com

Philip Deitiker

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 12:08:52 AM10/16/02
to
cr...@passionateape.com (Craig) says in
news:8996a29e.02101...@posting.google.com:

> If the subject interests you, come over to the Aquatic Ape
> forum, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/messages We might
> not accept your sunburn hypothesis (sounds unlikely to me,
> personally), but we won't spit on you for it, and you'll
> find some other ideas.

Where can I join? [I need to spit]. lol. Joking.

Rich Travsky

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 10:14:58 AM10/16/02
to
John Houser wrote:
>
> Hello, I am JOhn HOuser and I am sure I shall enjoy my talk at this
> newsgroup. It seems to me that the main reason that humans must have
> evolved in the water rather than the savanah was because they would
> probably have got terribly sunburnt. You see, I may be no scientist,
> but this is as plain to see as the nose on my face, and the ignorance
> that has been shown towards the theroy in this newsgroup. Why can't
> people be more open to people like Elaine Morgans work when evidence
> such as I stated above started glaringly at the face of all here?

Sunburn? This would seem to require that most of any body hair had
thinned/receded. Unless you want to restrict the sunburn only to those
areas of the body that, in an early hominid, probably had decreased hair
to begin with, like the face. Except then the face would sunburn...

A further problem is that you pretty much require full body immersion,
else those parts no in the water would get sunburnt. This still leaves
the face above water, unless somehow you have these creatures sporting
gills.



> The simplest ideas can sometimes be the largest,

Not in this case...

jgi...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 16, 2002, 4:26:11 PM10/16/02
to

"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAD7462...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> John Houser wrote:
>
> Sunburn?

In Blacks? Not that they can't suffer heat stroke. Might find a nice
shady tree better protection than sun glaring off water.
Cheers
John GW


Rich Travsky

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 12:32:56 AM10/17/02
to

The hope was the Houser would be motivated to consider the matter a little
deeper and then realize that skin colors weren't necessarily whiter that
far back...

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 4:11:19 AM10/17/02
to
<jgi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DXjr9.40110$OB5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

But of course, you can protect head and shoulders with long wet
hair. -- Mario


Rich Travsky

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 10:02:14 AM10/17/02
to

You're making the same mistakes Houser makes. Your assuming they looked like
modern humans.

jgi...@earthlink.net

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 11:47:59 AM10/17/02
to

"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAEC2E6...@hotMOVEmail.com...

> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >
> > <jgi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:DXjr9.40110$OB5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3DAD7462...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > > > John Houser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sunburn?
> > >
> > > In Blacks? Not that they can't suffer heat stroke. Might find a
> > nice
> > > shady tree better protection than sun glaring off water.
> > But of course, you can protect head and shoulders with long wet
> > hair. -- Mario
>
> You're making the same mistakes Houser makes. Your assuming they looked
like
> modern humans.
>

Yeah, if they did, maybe they even used sun screen,
Incidentally, by the rules of inference the above is an absolutely true
statement.
Cheers
John GW


Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 12:03:49 PM10/17/02
to
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAEC2E6...@hotMOVEmail.com...

> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > But of course, you can protect head and shoulders with long wet
> > hair. -- Mario
>
> You're making the same mistakes Houser makes. Your assuming they looked
> like modern humans.

This is not true. I am only searching for the couse of our look.
Couple our hair with other AAT things, and you have one logical picture,
that fits too good together, and is too big and too interactiv, to be
completly out of sense. Some parts could be wrong, some distorted, but there
is a lot of it that could explaion a lot of things. Eg. our hairness is
above water level. That definitely has something to do with water. And a lot
of similar clues.
Look at our nose. Think a bit, and you'll figure out that nose has
to have some depth (unlike on other apes), if you want to go with it
underwater. Depth is needed to allow entering of water into nose cavity to
compress air, so that air can be compressed to same pressure as water, and
that way reach equilibrium, which will stop further entrance of water. Look
at Proboscis monkey. It also helps if cavity and nose/mouth entrance are
made so that they don't leak air out. Now look at those parts in humans,
other apes, and Proboscis monkey. And so, and so, and so. Whoever is
interested in those things, is welcome at Yahoo! AAT group. -- Mario


Rich Travsky

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 3:29:29 PM10/17/02
to
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3DAEC2E6...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> > Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > > But of course, you can protect head and shoulders with long wet
> > > hair. -- Mario
> >
> > You're making the same mistakes Houser makes. Your assuming they looked
> > like modern humans.
>
> This is not true. I am only searching for the couse of our look.
> Couple our hair with other AAT things, and you have one logical picture,
> that fits too good together, and is too big and too interactiv, to be
> completly out of sense. Some parts could be wrong, some distorted, but there
> is a lot of it that could explaion a lot of things. Eg. our hairness is
> above water level. That definitely has something to do with water. And a lot
> of similar clues.

Yes, you are making Houser's Mistake. You're assuming those hominids had
light/white skin that would sunburn easily. This is an unreasonable assumption.

Houser said

It seems to me that the main reason that humans must have
evolved in the water rather than the savanah was because they would
probably have got terribly sunburnt.

That scenario has hair loss/reduction coming first! And you compound his
mistakes by claiming long wet would protect the head and shoulders against
sunburn, which assumes that they had hair patterns ilke us!!!

> Look at our nose. Think a bit, and you'll figure out that nose has
> to have some depth (unlike on other apes), if you want to go with it
> underwater. Depth is needed to allow entering of water into nose cavity to
> compress air, so that air can be compressed to same pressure as water, and
> that way reach equilibrium, which will stop further entrance of water. Look
> at Proboscis monkey. It also helps if cavity and nose/mouth entrance are
> made so that they don't leak air out. Now look at those parts in humans,
> other apes, and Proboscis monkey. And so, and so, and so. Whoever is
> interested in those things, is welcome at Yahoo! AAT group. -- Mario

The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection, not a water lifestyle.

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 5:25:00 PM10/17/02
to

"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:3DAF0F99...@hotMOVEmail.com...

> The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection

What evidence do you have for this statement?


Dana Strausser

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 6:44:26 PM10/17/02
to
"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.pe...@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:aomn4a$edn8$1...@as201.hinet.hr...

[the usual]

> Look at our nose. Think a bit, and you'll figure out that nose has
> to have some depth (unlike on other apes), if you want to go with it
> underwater. Depth is needed to allow entering of water into nose cavity to
> compress air, so that air can be compressed to same pressure as water, and
> that way reach equilibrium, which will stop further entrance of water.
Look
> at Proboscis monkey. It also helps if cavity and nose/mouth entrance are
> made so that they don't leak air out. Now look at those parts in humans,
> other apes, and Proboscis monkey. And so, and so, and so. Whoever is
> interested in those things, is welcome at Yahoo! AAT group. -- Mario

Yea, Mario, I think you're on to something here! Have you ever looked
at the circumference of the tip of your index finger? Why, it's the PERFECT
SIZE to fit your nostril, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is? Can you
put some sort of "wet ape spin" on that one?


Rich Travsky

unread,
Oct 17, 2002, 6:53:31 PM10/17/02
to

What evidence do you ahve that it's an aquatic adaptation?

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 10:27:27 AM10/18/02
to

"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:3DAF3F6B...@hotMOVEmail.com...

> > > The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection

> > What evidence do you have for this statement?

No answer.

> What evidence do you ahve that it's an aquatic adaptation?

Why do you think I have evidence it's an aquatic adaptation?

Can't you answer a simple question??


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 10:28:13 AM10/18/02
to

"Dana Strausser" <ceda...@tds.net> schreef in bericht
news:e3Hr9.25770$PS1.3...@kent.svc.tds.net...

> Yea, Mario, I think you're on to something here! Have you ever looked
> at the circumference of the tip of your index finger? Why, it's the
PERFECT
> SIZE to fit your nostril, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is? Can you
> put some sort of "wet ape spin" on that one?

Says Strausser, the great scientist...


Robt Gotschall

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 12:25:41 PM10/18/02
to
In article <3daf2b27$0$4252$ba62...@news.skynet.be>,
marc.ve...@village.uunet.be says...

Only the males have the _enlarged_ proboscis. While this does not prove
sexual selection, it is a fairly good indicator.

Why the big nose? One suggestion is that it helps the monkey

snorkel while swimming; but females swim just as well without

them. Another is that his large nose helps the male to cool off by

radiating excess body heat. But the most compelling suggestion is

that females prefer males with big noses, thus selecting for

offspring with big noses.

http://www.szgdocent.org/pp/p-probos.htm

--
robt

The truth is, however, that there is nothing very "normal" about nature.

Loren Eiseley

Gerrit Hanenburg

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 1:57:24 PM10/18/02
to
Robt Gotschall <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> > The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection
>>
>> What evidence do you have for this statement?

>Only the males have the _enlarged_ proboscis. While this does not prove
>sexual selection, it is a fairly good indicator.

In particular in the context of other indicators of sexual selection
such as body size dimorphism (males being more than twice the size of
females), and of course the breeding system with significant male
competition.
Now, the proper test would be something similar to what Malte
Andersson did with Long-tailed widowbirds: cut off their tails. ;-)

Gerrit

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 2:03:27 PM10/18/02
to

"Robt Gotschall" <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1819c7b25...@netnews.att.net...

> Only the males have the _enlarged_ proboscis.

Yes, but females & children have snub noses, ie, larger noses than in most
colobines. Why?

> While this does not prove sexual selection, it is a fairly good indicator.

Yes.

> Why the big nose? One suggestion is that it helps the monkey snorkel while
swimming; but females swim just as well without them. Another is that his
large nose helps the male to cool off by radiating excess body heat. But the
most compelling suggestion is that females prefer males with big noses, thus
selecting for offspring with big noses.
http://www.szgdocent.org/pp/p-probos.htm

The proboscis radiation hypothesis (Marcel Williams?) is nonsense IMO (it
can at best be secondary). The snorkel hypothesis or at least a
water-related hypothesis is more likely IMO. AFAIK a protruding external
nose is only seen in (ex)semi-aquatics (elephants, tapirs, hooded seals,
elephant seals...) & in ground-sniffing mammals, eg, insectivores, suids. If
this is so, why did it become a sex.signal in male proboscis monkeys, as in
eleph.seals & hooded seals? Male proboscis monkeys leave their mother's
group & wander to other groups, often by swimming. This behaviour was
probably important in a species that lived in mangroves & on islands
(Sundaland cf.Pleistocene low sea levels). A big nose may therefore have
been a signal of being able to swim to other groups and later become
selected as a sex.signal.

Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

Gerrit Hanenburg

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 2:43:10 PM10/18/02
to
"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote:

>The proboscis radiation hypothesis (Marcel Williams?) is nonsense IMO (it
>can at best be secondary). The snorkel hypothesis or at least a
>water-related hypothesis is more likely IMO. AFAIK a protruding external
>nose is only seen in (ex)semi-aquatics (elephants, tapirs, hooded seals,
>elephant seals...) & in ground-sniffing mammals, eg, insectivores, suids. If
>this is so, why did it become a sex.signal in male proboscis monkeys, as in
>eleph.seals & hooded seals? Male proboscis monkeys leave their mother's
>group & wander to other groups, often by swimming. This behaviour was
>probably important in a species that lived in mangroves & on islands
>(Sundaland cf.Pleistocene low sea levels). A big nose may therefore have
>been a signal of being able to swim to other groups and later become
>selected as a sex.signal.

But the nose in male proboscis monkeys is pendulous, i.e. it points
downward. What use is a snorkel that points downward?
Simple observation shows their noses do not function as snorkels (they
simply keep their heads above the water).

Gerrit

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 5:42:58 PM10/18/02
to
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAF0F99...@hotMOVEmail.com...

> That scenario has hair loss/reduction coming first! And you compound his
> mistakes by claiming long wet would protect the head and shoulders against
> sunburn, which assumes that they had hair patterns ilke us!!!

OK Rich, I want to excange some views with you (everybody can join
if you like).
All primates have hair. So, let's say that we started like that.
First I cannot imagine how moving to harsher climate could produce hair
reduction. But OK, it doesn't matter. There is another thing. We retained
hair on head, bellow arms, and on sexual triangle.
Now, can you explain to me why? Let's forget head hair. Let's
concentrate on other hair. They say they are friction points. Now, I can
imagine sexual triangle being friction point only in quadruped stance. Am I
correct?
Now, primates have sexual signs at the back. Those signs aren't
hair, but usually something red. Now, gelada baboon (which have fat bottoms,
just like us) have those signs at front, but it is also something red. If we
became bipedal while still haired, wouldn't we also have something that is
distingishable amongst all this hair, and not hair itself. Only in situation
where you have hairless body, and on that hairless body you have hair around
your genitalia, we can expect to have hair as sexual stimulans. This looks
to me like we were hairless already when we were in transition from
quadruped to bipedal. Am I right? -- Mario


Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 6:10:42 PM10/18/02
to
"Robt Gotschall" <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1819c7b25...@netnews.att.net...

> Only the males have the _enlarged_ proboscis.

I wasn't refering to males. Females don't have big noses? AFAIK,
Proboscis monkies don't have enemies (except crocs). Looks like an ideal
environment for primate on a places where you don't have crocs. And you
don't have crocs in every water. Eg. even salt water crocs have to lay eggs
in fresh water, so they need to stay close to fresh water. -- Mario


Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 6:26:02 PM10/18/02
to
"Dana Strausser" <ceda...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:e3Hr9.25770$PS1.3...@kent.svc.tds.net...

> Yea, Mario, I think you're on to something here! Have you ever looked
> at the circumference of the tip of your index finger? Why, it's the
> PERFECT
> SIZE to fit your nostril, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is? Can you
> put some sort of "wet ape spin" on that one?

Ah, I see now. To you, this is all just a game. -- Mario


Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 6:24:07 PM10/18/02
to
"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:j0l0ruck520j79l09...@4ax.com...

I must admit that I don't dig snorkel idea. The only use of snorkel
I see is in muddy waters where you hide from terrestrial predators in that
muddy water. In all other cases, why do you need 50cm snorkel. You can
simply take a breath every minute (and observe surrondings in the same
time).
Regarding nose points downward. Can you dive with nose open? Well,
of course you can. You can dive with mouth open, too. Our lungs-nose
combination is shaped like curved pipe (like freediver's snorkel). It is
excellent for preventing leakage of air, out. It has to be pionted downward,
it's the whole point. -- Mario


Dana Strausser

unread,
Oct 18, 2002, 9:02:42 PM10/18/02
to
"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.pe...@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:aoq1qd$6cju$2...@as201.hinet.hr...

No, no, Mario. This is *not* a game. The above is a perfect illustration
of the "Adaptation Uber Alles" that goes on in the heads of the wet apes.
It's a pity all of this thrust and parry is lost on you --and Algis and
Marco
and Elaine and ....ad nauseum.

Wait... you actually DONT get it, do you....?


Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 6:27:26 AM10/19/02
to
"Dana Strausser" <ceda...@tds.net> wrote in message news:<Sa2s9.27213$PS1.3...@kent.svc.tds.net>...

> No, no, Mario. This is *not* a game. The above is a perfect illustration
> of the "Adaptation Uber Alles" that goes on in the heads of the wet apes.
> It's a pity all of this thrust and parry is lost on you --and Algis and
> Marco
> and Elaine and ....ad nauseum.
>
> Wait... you actually DONT get it, do you....?

So, is this your problem? Is it the adaptationist program per se (a la
Gould and Lewontin), or is it the fact that the AAH uses it logically
to infer ancestral lifestyles based on features that are otherwise
difficult to explain with the orthodox terrestrial stories?

If it's the adaptationist program where do you draw the line? Where do
say trait x is clearly evidence of an adaptation for behaviour y and
where do you say "mmm. confusing. It must just be a spandrel"? I'd say
that was a bit of a subjective approach, wouldn't you?

Of course I think I know where you'd draw the line: When the proposed
explanation for the trait fits the orthodox terrestrial just-so story
then it's
an adaptation, when it fits the AAH then it must be a spandrel. I
suspect this because you have made it quite clear how your form of
scientific objectivity works.

Mario made a good point. What *is* the explanation for the structure
of the human nose? We've had all sorts of hand waving about it over
the years - it's to keep the air cool, it's to keep the air moist,
it's to keep the air warm, it's for sexual selection (yeah, phwooor, I
just fancy all those ladies with great big hook noses to death, don't
you?) And yet, none are as simple, clear cut or as consistent with
other traits in the model as the AAH explanation. The simple fact is
that the hood that surrounds the nostril helps in swimming and diving
but you cannot accept that can you? No, that is too heretical. An
adaptation that actually helps us to swim and dive? - no that just
cannot be. Never.

So...it must just be a spandrel. One of those quirky, wierd things
that just happens sometimes. It's serendipity. Just like floating
babies and breathing control from bipedal walking.

You might as well dust off your bible and say "Well, who knows. Maybe
it was God's will."

Algis Kuliukas

David Timpe

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 2:54:51 PM10/19/02
to

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote in message
news:3daf2b27$0$4252$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

Sexually mature males have 'em. Females and juveniles of both sexes don't.
What part of sexual selection don't you understand? Maybe we ought to lock
you up in a small room with a bunch of peacocks and peahens -- without
earplugs.

Both sexes swim if they have to (as a result of not being able to leap all
the way from one branch to another over water, falling in because of
misjudgment, and getting out as quickly as they can --there's crocs down
there!), but neither sex does so by choice. The fleshy blob at the end of
the males' noses is of no value in their mode of swimming (more or less a
dog-paddle, or so it seemed to me).

Fleshy blobs aren't of much value as a snorkel. A full-blown trunk like an
elephant's is another matter entirely, and even that is as more useful as a
"hand", a "hose" and a "breeze-sniffer". Snorkeling is a side-effect as
much as anything. I'll grant that a tapir's nostrils might be an aquatic
adaptation, and if the elephant's trunk were only used as a snorkel it might
not have gotten much farther than that. The tapir is the best example of a
"natural snorkel" I can think of. A lot of marine mammals could use them,
but blowholes don't seem to qualify (elephant seals are as sexually
dimorphic as proboscis monkeys when it comes to their noses).

You can't tell an awful lot about the fleshy part of extinct hominids'
noses, anyway. They're constrained by certain limits imposed by the
skeletal remains, but that's not an absolute depiction.

As far as sunburn is concerned, I learned that water is no protection when I
was about five years old (and it hurt like hell, especially when combined
with "swimmers itch" parasites). Water blocks the red end of the spectrum,
but UV is on the opposite side, and only gets refracted to hit all parts of
the swimmer, even those which would otherwise be in the shade (hint: the
deeper you go, the bluer it gets -- UV rays, bluer than blue, penetrate to
depths at which you'd be hard pressed to see anything, since your eyes can't
see anything in that part of the spectrum).

--
Dave Timpe

dtimpe at new dot rr dot com

David Timpe

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 2:57:10 PM10/19/02
to
"Robt Gotschall" <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote in message

| The truth is, however, that there is nothing very "normal" about nature.

Fortunately.

David Timpe

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 3:03:25 PM10/19/02
to
"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:tsh0ruon01a6crf1d...@4ax.com...
| Robt Gotschall <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote:

| Now, the proper test would be something similar to what Malte
| Andersson did with Long-tailed widowbirds: cut off their tails. ;-)

Ouch! Leabe by dose alode! The ladies lobe be just the way I ab. It's
enough to bake be swib across the streab to the dext badgrobe!

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 3:01:28 PM10/19/02
to

"David Timpe" <DTi...@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> schreef in bericht
news:%Ths9.84779$om2.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> | > The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection

> | What evidence do you have for this statement?

> Sexually mature males have 'em. Females and juveniles of both sexes
don't.

They do have snub noses.

> What part of sexual selection don't you understand? Maybe we ought to
lock you up in a small room with a bunch of peacocks and peahens -- without
earplugs.

Are you trying to be funny or do you want a discussion??


zolota

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 3:50:10 PM10/19/02
to

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:tsh0ruon01a6crf1d...@4ax.com...
> Robt Gotschall <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection
> >>
> >> What evidence do you have for this statement?
>
> >Only the males have the _enlarged_ proboscis. While this does not prove
> >sexual selection, it is a fairly good indicator.
>
> In particular in the context of other indicators of sexual selection
> such as body size dimorphism (males being more than twice the size of
> females), and of course the breeding system with significant male
> competition.

Is this sexual dimorphism closely related to the numerical ratio of the two
sexes? I.e. where the numbers are matched or pair off the sizes are similar,
but when there is a large excess of females vs breeding males the few
breeding males tend to be much larger. Seals vs sea lions as an example.
monkeys vs. gorillas as another.

Z


David Timpe

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 3:52:42 PM10/19/02
to

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote in message
news:3db04d66$0$4260$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

|
| "Robt Gotschall" <hob...@spamworldnet.att.net> schreef in bericht
| news:MPG.1819c7b25...@netnews.att.net...
|
| > Only the males have the _enlarged_ proboscis.
|
| Yes, but females & children have snub noses, ie, larger noses than in most
| colobines. Why?

Base for possible future male development? It's useless for swimming, in
any event.

| > While this does not prove sexual selection, it is a fairly good
indicator.
|
| Yes.
|
| > Why the big nose? One suggestion is that it helps the monkey snorkel
while
| swimming; but females swim just as well without them. Another is that his
| large nose helps the male to cool off by radiating excess body heat. But
the
| most compelling suggestion is that females prefer males with big noses,
thus
| selecting for offspring with big noses.
| http://www.szgdocent.org/pp/p-probos.htm
|
| The proboscis radiation hypothesis (Marcel Williams?) is nonsense IMO (it
| can at best be secondary). The snorkel hypothesis or at least a
| water-related hypothesis is more likely IMO. AFAIK a protruding external
| nose is only seen in (ex)semi-aquatics (elephants, tapirs, hooded seals,
| elephant seals...) & in ground-sniffing mammals, eg, insectivores, suids.
If
| this is so, why did it become a sex.signal in male proboscis monkeys, as
in
| eleph.seals & hooded seals? Male proboscis monkeys leave their mother's
| group & wander to other groups, often by swimming.

Except for the swimming, this is common in a lot of primates. In any event,
since the amount of swimming required to get 10 feet from where one lands to
the opposite shore is a few seconds at most, I doubt a nasal adaptation was
required. If you can't beat the crocs to the opposite shore, I doubt a
snorkel is of much use. Swim faster. Breathe when you make it. There are
still proboscis monkeys, so I suppose they have a method that works. Not
many humans want to spend enough time in mangrove swamps (and if our
ancestors evolved there, why shouldn't we?) to give a good account of their
lifestyle.

Mangrove swamps are among the most endangered ecosystems on the planet
precisely because the dominant species (us, in case you didn't know) think
they're useless (probably wrong, but this is a visceral thing -- ask a
proboscis monkey or the crocodile below it what it thinks about a human
city). Odd for a species that evolved there according to some wet apes. We
actually go out of our way to visit savannas as tourists. Mangrove swamps
anyone? Only with enough bug spray and at least as much fresh water as
they'd need to go out for an equivalent jaunt in the desert. Worth the
experience? Assuredly, but if you set up a pair of lines to the mangroves
on one side, and the Serengeti on the other, you'd have 20 people ready to
brave the lions of the Serengeti before anyone showed up to see the cute
proboscis monkeys in their mangrove swamp.

Make of this observation what you may, but my gut knows where home is. It
ain't a place like a swamp, which I have to teach myself to acknowledge as a
valued ecosystem. My gut likes a nice beach, but the woods are good, too.
A more open woodland (i.e. savanna) isn't my personal cup of tea, but others
like it just fine, or they wouldn't have been so eager to cut the woods
down, and that gives farmers the chance to raise crops in an environment
that might have been natural to another group of humans. I'd rather not
have to depend on agriculture, but since I do, I guess I'll tolerate it
(starvation is a pain). All of these ecosystems, and more, are fine with
me, but a swamp is at about the lowest rung, no matter how much I might
value it intellectually as an ecosystem. My idea of heaven may not be
yours, but human swampers are pretty rare outside places like the
Sunderbands of the Bay of Bengal, East Texas and Southern Louisiana. A few
might post here, and give an alternate point of view on occasion. We humans
are a pretty diverse group, given our lack of genetic diversity.

zolota

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 3:53:00 PM10/19/02
to

"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.pe...@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:aoq0ti$6ehs$1...@as201.hinet.hr...

Crocodiles lay eggs in water? Can you give a cite?

Thanks

Z


David Timpe

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 4:02:43 PM10/19/02
to

"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.02101...@posting.google.com...

| An
| adaptation that actually helps us to swim and dive? - no that just
| cannot be. Never.

If it did, you might have something. As it is, your idea doesn't work,
either. Of all the swimming, diving animals on the planet, none has a nose
even resembling a human. Elephants, maybe. Humans, no.

Michael Clark

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 5:33:13 PM10/19/02
to
"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> wrote in message
news:3db1ac7a$0$5995$ba62...@news.skynet.be...

Dave's new in these parts. He doesn't know, yet, that "discussion"
isn't possible with Marco --so he will have to content himself with
being funny. I can see it all now: Marco balled up in a closet with
30 pairs of very colorful and very raucous birds.

---------------
Michael Clark
bit...@spammer.com
Hey Marco. Got that A'pith menu yet?

Richard Wagler

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 5:56:39 PM10/19/02
to

David Timpe wrote:

Nostrils point *down*. Nostrils can't be closed.

If this is a swimming adaptation natural selection
was heavy into the recreational pharmaceuticals
when it came up with that one....

Rick Wagler


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 6:29:00 PM10/19/02
to

"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> schreef in bericht
news:ur3jsik...@corp.supernews.com...

> Dave's new in these parts.

He's not.


Richard Wagler

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 6:59:21 PM10/19/02
to

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

Snippity doo dah, snippety day..
My oh my what a wonderful da-a-a-y......

(with apologies to Bob Keeter)

How does one discuss with someone who refuses
to engage??

You fancy yourself a cutting edge thinker
advancing the frontiers of knowledge.

In reality you hide behind ruthless snipping,
evasive non sequiturs and macros that have
been refuted point by point over and over
again...

And Algis thinks we're the intellectual cowards....


Rick Wagler

Ps Prove me wrong!


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 7:11:26 PM10/19/02
to

"David Timpe" <DTi...@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> schreef in bericht
news:eKis9.84793$om2.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> | The proboscis radiation hypothesis (Marcel Williams?) is nonsense IMO
(it can at best be secondary). The snorkel hypothesis or at least a
water-related hypothesis is more likely IMO. AFAIK a protruding external
nose is only seen in (ex)semi-aquatics (elephants, tapirs, hooded seals,
elephant seals...) & in ground-sniffing mammals, eg, insectivores, suids. If
this is so, why did it become a sex.signal in male proboscis monkeys, as in
eleph.seals & hooded seals? Male proboscis monkeys leave their mother's
group & wander to other groups, often by swimming.

> Except for the swimming, this is common in a lot of primates.

In cercopiths you mean. Yes, except for the swimming. The argument is
comparative (elephants, tapirs, some seals,...) & functional (any
lengthening of the airways is advantageous initially in swimmers/waders).

> In any event, since the amount of swimming required to get 10 feet from
where one lands to the opposite shore is a few seconds at most, I doubt a
nasal adaptation was required. If you can't beat the crocs to the opposite
shore, I doubt a snorkel is of much use. Swim faster. Breathe when you
make it.

It's not necessarily about snorkels, but about surface-swimming/wading or
else ground-sniffing (sex.selection being secondary). If you are only
parttime swimming, every lengthening of the airways is advantageous. Says
nothing about swimming faster or breathing deeper.

> There are still proboscis monkeys, so I suppose they have a method that
works.

They're not very aquatic (any more?): find all their food in the trees,
cross rivers only if necessary.

> Not many humans want to spend enough time in mangrove swamps (and if our
ancestors evolved there, why shouldn't we?) to give a good account of their
lifestyle.

Our ancestors lived in the trees. If our ancestors evolved there, why
shouldn't we? Bad argument: species evolve. Rest snipped: I don't disagree.
You may be right about mangroves not having been the specific environment
where early hominids or early Homo lived. It's just a possibility. More
likely is a mixed seaside environment once, incl. embayed lagoons, reef
back-channels, near-shore islands etc., see D.Ellis Ch.4 in M.Roede
etc.ed.1991 "The aq.ape: fact or fiction?" Souvenir London.

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 7:34:09 PM10/19/02
to

"David Timpe" <DTi...@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> schreef in bericht
news:eKis9.84793$om2.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> | Yes, but females & children have snub noses, ie, larger noses than in
most colobines. Why?

> Base for possible future male development? It's useless for swimming, in
any event.

Yes, they don't swim with their noses... But it's not useless of course in a
semi-aquatic environment. Any lengthening of the airways is obviously
advantageous there in a previously terrestrial mammal.

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 7:35:53 PM10/19/02
to
> being funny. I can see it all now: Marco balled up in a closet with
> 30 pairs of very colorful and very raucous birds.

I have yet to see the first sensible sentence of this imbecil (note the
spelling, Eshleman).


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 19, 2002, 7:40:39 PM10/19/02
to

"Richard Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> schreef in bericht
news:3DB1D517...@shaw.ca...

> Nostrils point *down*. Nostrils can't be closed.

Again: An external nose (protruding nostrils) is found in several
semi-aquatics (a few seals, babirusa, the tapirs ...), in possible
ex-semi-aquatics (elephants & perhaps swine), in several forest mammals for
rooting/sniffing in the ground (swine, coati, diverse insectivores).
Possible functions in these mammals are, eg, intraspecific display (male
bladder-nose, elephant seal, proboscis monkey), manipulation of food
(elephants, tapirs, swine, insectivores), snorkel (elephants),... It's not
unexpected that semi-aquatics initially tend to protrude the nostrils & to
narrow the airways (for keeping water out), but the anatomy is very
variable. Full aquatics have the nostrils more dorsally instead of
anteriorly, and never protruding. The correlation with semi-aquaticness
could be for snorkeling (elephants: flexible nose), streamlining (nostrils
underneath: your point), keeping the water out while dipping, back-swim,...
Humans have slit-like rather than round nostrils, possibly for easier
closure. Some humans close their nostrils with the upper lip when they swim
underwater (see Elaine's last book). The (overlappipng) difference between
the noses of women & children & those of men could be due to different
aquatic habits, eg, more dipping vs more diving, eg, in most Oceanic native
societies, "there appears to have been a fairly sharp division of fishing
labour by sex: females did most of the gathering (usually by hand or probing
stick) of mollusks, crayfish & other creatures found in shallow waters;
males did most or all of the rest", eg, open sea fishing by boat, underwater
fishing, throwing harpoons (Oliver 1989 "Oceania, the Native Cultures of
Australia and the Pacific Islands" vol.1, Univ.Hawaii Press).

Jason Eshleman

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 2:09:28 AM10/20/02
to
In article <3db1eccd$0$6022$ba62...@news.skynet.be>,

Noted. Curious how you so readily embrace the fact that you cannot learn.


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 2:17:58 AM10/20/02
to

"Jason Eshleman" <j...@vici.ucdavis.edu> schreef in bericht
news:aothao$64s$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...

> >I have yet to see the first sensible sentence of this imbecil (note the
spelling, Eshleman).

> Noted. Curious how you so readily embrace the fact that you cannot learn.

:-)


Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 5:42:38 AM10/20/02
to
"David Timpe" <DTi...@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:DTis9.85025$om2.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

Wherever I read about Proboscis monkey, there is always mention that
nose of female Poboscis resembles nose of humans. Now, if we know that
Proboscis is using tree/water combination to live in (this is why it has no
predators except crocs, and this is why they are excellent swimmers, like
us) - like baboons are using trees or rocks/land environment (and this is
why they are fast on land, unlike us), and if we know that water is
excellent environment for biped regadring safety (biped can easily drown
terrestrial predator in water - see how kangoroos are drowning attacking
dogs in creeks, and roos hands are even nothing like primate hands).
So, if that is so, why we don't see more of that kind of monkies in
a rainy forest of Miocene Africa. Why not one of monkies resembles Proboscis
(except humans), and Proboscis are so unique (just like bipeds are, too).
Well, if you look it closely, there is more bipeds with proboscis nose, than
all other apes together. They are called humans.
So, why aren't our closest living relatives nothing like Proboscis.
Because they couldn't go anywhere near this environment, because this
environment was already occupied by bipeds. Thus their adaptations went in
opposite direction. -- Mario


Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 5:56:12 AM10/20/02
to
"David Timpe" <DTi...@NOSPAMnew.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%Ths9.84779$om2.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> As far as sunburn is concerned, I learned that water is no protection when
> I
> was about five years old (and it hurt like hell, especially when combined
> with "swimmers itch" parasites). Water blocks the red end of the
> spectrum,
> but UV is on the opposite side, and only gets refracted to hit all parts
> of
> the swimmer, even those which would otherwise be in the shade (hint: the
> deeper you go, the bluer it gets -- UV rays, bluer than blue, penetrate to
> depths at which you'd be hard pressed to see anything, since your eyes
> can't
> see anything in that part of the spectrum). Dave Timpe

Few questions. Does it hurt equally on the face (which is out of
water, and is getteing moch more reflected sun from sea surface, if you are
whole day in water).
Second question does it hurt when skin gets transformed into its
natural state (and it definitely is a natural state, if we ever lived
south). I wouldn't say so. -- Mario


Gerrit Hanenburg

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 6:06:15 AM10/20/02
to
"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.pe...@zg.tel.hr> wrote:

> Regarding nose points downward. Can you dive with nose open? Well,
>of course you can. You can dive with mouth open, too. Our lungs-nose
>combination is shaped like curved pipe (like freediver's snorkel). It is
>excellent for preventing leakage of air, out. It has to be pionted downward,
>it's the whole point. -- Mario

The point of a snorkel is that you can breath while your face is
submerged. For that reason it sticks up alongside your head with its
free end above the surface because that's where the air is.
The problem is not to prevent leakage of air but to prevent water from
entering the respiratory system (when the latter fails the situation
is called drowning).
Normally when submerged we simply close our nasal passage by pressing
the soft pallate against the posterior wall of the nasopharynx
(through the action of the tensor and levator veli palatini muscles).
The problem with the immobile pendulous nose of the male proboscis
monkey is that is submerged when its face is submerged, therefore it
cannot and does not function as a snorkel.

Gerrit

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 6:43:47 AM10/20/02
to

"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:gvv4rug71pi6jg8m4...@4ax.com...

I never talked about male proboscis nose, I talked about female's
nose. Regarding snorkel. I don't see reason to breathing air while you are
submerged, unless you are hiding from terresrial predators in a muddy waters
of rainy forest. I don't think this is case for proboscis monkey.
You are right that it is essential to prevent entering of water when
you are breathing. But, if you are not breathing (ie., don't have to be
submerged for half an hour, in order to hide from predator), and you are
under water, and you cannot close your nose, it is essential to prevent
leaking of air out of your holes. U-shaped airway (the one where nose wholes
are pointing back to direction of lungs) is the best for that.
IOW, you can dive with your mouth open. Water will enter into your
mouth until it compresses air in your lungs to the pressure of water. It is
esential in that situation to prevent leakage of air out of the lungs. If
you have openings like nose that you cannot close, it is essential to
provide :
1) enough volume of cavity after those holes, so that water can stay
in that cavity, and not enter respiratory system
2) you have to find ways to prevent leakage of air
This can be accomplished by (and I see trend in
aquatics/semi-aquatics towards this) :
1) enlargement of nose cavity volume (if you have small volume
cavity - like apes). I see trend toward making ratio of nose/mouth cavity
volume more toward nose (maybe this could be responsible for nose
protrudance).
2) nose U-shaped, or for mouth, smaller entrance (lips of smaller
lenght). I see trend toward smaller lips lenght (for the same lenght of
snout).
-- Mario


Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 7:41:52 AM10/20/02
to
> > Regarding nose points downward. Can you dive with nose open? Well, of
course you can. You can dive with mouth open, too. Our lungs-nose
combination is shaped like curved pipe (like freediver's snorkel). It is
excellent for preventing leakage of air, out. It has to be pionted downward,
it's the whole point. -- Mario

> The point of a snorkel is that you can breath while your face is
submerged. For that reason it sticks up alongside your head with its free
end above the surface because that's where the air is. The problem is not to
prevent leakage of air but to prevent water from entering the respiratory
system (when the latter fails the situation is called drowning).
Normally when submerged we simply close our nasal passage by pressing the

soft palate against the posterior wall of the nasopharynx (through the


action of the tensor and levator veli palatini muscles).

Simply? I don't know.
- Does closure of the velum prevent water coming inside the nasal cavity &
paranasal sinuses? IMO we can't regulate the air pressure inside the nasal
cavity when the velum is closed. Getting water inside the nose is very
unpleasant.
- Can chimps close the velum? do they use the same muscles as we do?

> The problem with the immobile pendulous nose of the male proboscis monkey
is that is submerged when its face is submerged, therefore it cannot and
does not function as a snorkel. Gerrit

- Yes, it's obvious it's no snorkel, but can't it help close the nostrils?
These monkeys can swim >7m underwater (but also, eg, some Macaca &
Cercopith.spp without ext.noses can dive).
- Immobile & pendulous are contradictory. I don't know whether there are
(many) muscles in the male's nose? & in that of females & children? It's
said that the males can produce a typical 2-tone sound, one through the nose
& one through the mouth. Perhaps they can regulate the pressure inside the
ext.nose?inflate?

The human nose seems to have several typical features vs. chimps, IOW, it
was probably multi-functional:
- philtrum in upper lip,
- external nose,
- slit-like nostrils,
- nostrils underneath the nose,
- rudimentary muscles for opening (!) the nostrils IIRC,
- conchal swelling mucosa (rhythm of ca.90 seconds),
- closure of the velum (not in chimps?).
I can't see why one of these features would have been advantageous outside
the water, since they're absent in most mammals. Explanations like
purifying, moisturising or warming incoming air, filtering dust, retaining
water from expired air, etc. are nonsense: other primates (except snub-nosed
monkeys partly), even some very cursorial or some living in cold climates,
don't have ext.noses. In water, all these featues could make sense, but it's
difficult IMO to find non-wading or non-swimming explanations.
- The philtrum nicely fits the septum between the nostrils, for an
illustration see Elaine's last book: very likely for closing the nostrils as
some humans still do when swimming underwater.
- Ext.nose: triangular: keeps water out when swimming underwater? Also as
snorkel when swimming on the back? Also keeps water out when dipping (air
pressure inside nasal cavity?)? Also lengthens the airway.
- Slitlike nostrils can more easily be closed than round openings.
- Pinnipeds have nostrils that are closed in rest.
- Erectile tissue of the inf.concha (plexus cavernosus) see my 1985 paper
(http://www.egroups.com/files/AAT/Med.Hyp..doc can be found in AAT files).
- Closure of velum, see Elaine's last book?

Algis Kuliukas

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 10:31:52 AM10/20/02
to
Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3DB1D517...@shaw.ca>...

> Nostrils point *down*. Nostrils can't be closed.

Yes down, exactly as they should be for a laterally but forward
swimming/diving hominid. Even if they cannot be closed the nose 'hood'
certainly helps keeps water out. Whereas chimp/gorilla nostrils are by
comparison greatly exposed.



> If this is a swimming adaptation natural selection
> was heavy into the recreational pharmaceuticals
> when it came up with that one....

Well what is the explanation which you favour? Too keep air warm,
moist, cold or is it the sexual selection idea?

The most plausible explanation is surely that human nostrils appear to
be some kind of compromise between shielding the nostrils from water
when swimming/diving and improving the streamlining of the face in the
same way that the leading edge of the bow of a boat is pointed, again
to aid swimming and diving.

If you cannot give a better explanation, why must the aquatic one be
wrong? This is what I mean by intellectual cowardice. You refuse to
consider the evidence when it in favour of the AAH because you are
already committed to the belief that it is wrong.

Algis

Jim McGinn

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 1:59:35 PM10/20/02
to
al...@RiverApes.com (Algis Kuliukas) wrote

> human nostrils appear to
> be some kind of compromise between shielding the nostrils from water
> when swimming/diving and improving the streamlining of the face in the
> same way that the leading edge of the bow of a boat is pointed, again
> to aid swimming and diving.

Seals, sea lions, and whales (blow holes),
exhibit streamlining of nasal morphologies.
Not humans. Wake up to reality, Algis.

Jim

Rich Travsky

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 4:08:20 PM10/20/02
to

If you look at an australopith skull, their face was more ape like. Hence,
their noses were correspondingly ape like. Since australopiths were
committed bipeds, appeals nose shape and swimming/diving are pointless
since the bipedal transition has already happened.

In habilis/rudolphensis/whatever you see jaw reduction with a corresponding
flattening of the face and a more human face developing. By erectus, this
has become quite clear.

All those species were bipeds.

Appeals to nose streamlining are pointless since there's little streamling
in the human body as viewed from above. In fact, since we're bipedal, we
have to move our head back to see where we're going (if swimming or diving),
and this so reduces any remaining streamling as to make the notoin
ridiculous.

Sexual selection would rank high on reasons for the shape of the human
nose. There is plenty of biological precedent for such a notion.

Marc Verhaegen

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 4:45:52 PM10/20/02
to

"Rich Travsky" <REtr...@hotmail.comMOVE> schreef in bericht
news:3DB30D34...@hotmail.comMOVE...

> If you look at an australopith skull, their face was more ape like. Hence,
their noses were correspondingly ape like. Since australopiths were
committed bipeds, appeals nose shape and swimming/diving are pointless since
the bipedal transition has already happened.

A bit confused perhaps? Of course apiths had apelike noses. What else?? Why
on earth would the wading-climbing apiths need ext.noses?? What is your
problem?? This is exactly what we propose in M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech &
Stephen Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" TREE 17:212-7: "... we argue
that (1) the earliest hominids waded and climbed in swampy or coastal
forests in Africa-Arabia and partly fed on hard-shelled fruits and molluscs;
(2) their australopith descendants in Africa had a comparable locomotion but
generally preferred a diet including wetland plants; (3) the Homo
descendants migrated to or remained near the Indian Ocean coasts, lost most
climbing abilities, and exploited waterside resources." It's Homo that had
an external nose, remember? Okidoki?


Richard Wagler

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 6:14:00 PM10/20/02
to

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

All kinds of animals have long noses. Don't know what a
'proteuding nostril' is but the noses of bona fide semi-aquatics
like mink, otters, beaver, capybaras are not particualrly
protruding. Many ungulates such as horses and camels
have long snouts with correspondingly long nasal passages.
I don't think any trend can be observed. Noses and associated
airways are complex things and have designed to do many
different things. And many just get pushed around by what's
happening to the jaw.

Human nostrils are not perfectly round nor are they slits.
If you are going to close them up a set of muscles dedicated
to the task is the way to go. Trying to stretch your upper lip
just complicates the business of keeping your mouth closed.

Sorry but there is absolutely nothing in the human nose that
speaks to an aquatic past.

Rick Wagler


Richard Wagler

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 6:27:14 PM10/20/02
to

Algis Kuliukas wrote:

> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3DB1D517...@shaw.ca>...
>
> > Nostrils point *down*. Nostrils can't be closed.
>
> Yes down, exactly as they should be for a laterally but forward
> swimming/diving hominid. Even if they cannot be closed the nose 'hood'
> certainly helps keeps water out. Whereas chimp/gorilla nostrils are by
> comparison greatly exposed.

If you are under water the density of water relative to air means
water will come in no matter which way the nostrils are pointing..
Try a simple experiment. Next time your taking a bath get as
many vessels of different sizes and shapes as possible and put them
under the water. Move them around any way you please. All should
become clear.


>
>
> > If this is a swimming adaptation natural selection
> > was heavy into the recreational pharmaceuticals
> > when it came up with that one....
>
> Well what is the explanation which you favour? Too keep air warm,
> moist, cold or is it the sexual selection idea?

Noses and associated airways are complex structures that
exist in a wide array of different configurations. All of the
above works for me.

>
>
> The most plausible explanation is surely that human nostrils appear to
> be some kind of compromise between shielding the nostrils from water
> when swimming/diving and improving the streamlining of the face in the
> same way that the leading edge of the bow of a boat is pointed, again
> to aid swimming and diving.

But the pointed bow of a boat flows water around a streamlined hull.
Now putt this 'bow' nose on the bottom of a bulbous head mounted
on wide, square shoulders. Your notion is not serious

>
>
> If you cannot give a better explanation, why must the aquatic one be
> wrong? This is what I mean by intellectual cowardice. You refuse to
> consider the evidence when it in favour of the AAH because you are
> already committed to the belief that it is wrong.

No, Algis, I'm committed to the belief that ideas as badly argued
as the AAT probably have little or no value.

Rick Wagler


Charles

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 7:47:15 PM10/20/02
to Marc Verhaegen
I am not certain if this is a question or a comment, but the shape, size, etc.
of the human nose is NOT from sexual selection... since it does not change
radically at puberty. correct? (although it does seem to grow in proportion to
the rest of the body.)
my point is that the buttocks, female breasts, hair, lack of hair, whites of
eyes, penis, and a few other attributes can arguably be assigned to sexual
selection.
the nose?
thanks
--chas

Lorenzo L. Love

unread,
Oct 20, 2002, 8:18:31 PM10/20/02
to

I have a hypothesis for the shape of the human nose. The shape of the
human nose shields the nostrils from rain. This is the only water it
protects us from, not swimming, diving or wading. There is an old
poacher trick for taking deer (or their neighbors cow) illegally. Wait
until there is a heavy downpour and under the cover of the rain when the
animal's senses are dulled, sneak up on it and hit it in the head with
an axe. During heavy rain, no predator with any sense will be out
hunting. Prey animals instinctively know this, so when they have their
sight and hearing severely limited and sense of smell made totally
ineffective by heavy rain, they are not particularly alert and generally
just patiently wait out the rain with their heads down. It is possible
to walk up to a deer or other prey animal to contact range. I theorize
that Homo erectus commonly hunted in such a manner. The Acheulean
handaxe is ideal for this purpose and with their prominent browridges,
erectus would have his eyes shielded from the rain and would have better
vision than any other creature during heavy rain. With the invention of
the hat, prominent browridges became unnecessary and begin to atrophy
with the evolution into H. sapiens. The rain shielding nose is a
holdover from erectus rain hunting and still has advantages in modern
humans in the rain.
If anyone disagrees with this, I invite them to prove it wrong. If you
can't prove it wrong, it must be right. Isn't that the way it works,
Algis?

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"One must not assume that an understanding of science is present in
those who borrow its language"
Louis Pasteur

Gerrit Hanenburg

unread,
Oct 21, 2002, 4:01:28 AM10/21/02
to
"zolota" <zol...@shaw.ca> wrote:

>> In particular in the context of other indicators of sexual selection
>> such as body size dimorphism (males being more than twice the size of
>> females), and of course the breeding system with significant male
>> competition.

>Is this sexual dimorphism closely related to the numerical ratio of the two
>sexes? I.e. where the numbers are matched or pair off the sizes are similar,
>but when there is a large excess of females vs breeding males the few
>breeding males tend to be much larger. Seals vs sea lions as an example.
>monkeys vs. gorillas as another.

But highly dimorphic species such as gorillas and sealions (and
proboscis monkeys) do not have skewed sex ratios if that's what you
mean. The sex ratio in these species is close to 1:1 as in
non-dimorphic species (it's an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS)).
Do not get confused by breeding systems such as harems which may give
the impression that there are many more females than males. You also
have to count the bachelor males, which in a species such as elephant
seals can make up 90% of the male population and add up to a 1:1
male:female ratio.

Gerrit

Mario Petrinovic

unread,
Oct 21, 2002, 3:56:19 AM10/21/02