Excellent new theory concerning the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis
John Houser
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
news:700e727.02101...@posting.google.com...
Yes, you are no scientist.
Marc Verhaegen
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
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
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.
Philip Deitiker
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
>
> 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
"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
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
news:DXjr9.40110$OB5.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
But of course, you can protect head and shoulders with long wet
hair. -- Mario
Rich Travsky
You're making the same mistakes Houser makes. Your assuming they looked like
modern humans.
jgi...@earthlink.net
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >
> > <jgi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:DXjr9.40110$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.
> > 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
> 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
>
> "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
"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
news:aomn4a$edn8$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
[the usual]
> Look at our nose. Think a bit, and you'll figure out that nose has
> to have some depth (unlike on other apes), if you want to go with it
> underwater. Depth is needed to allow entering of water into nose cavity to
> compress air, so that air can be compressed to same pressure as water, and
> that way reach equilibrium, which will stop further entrance of water.
Look
> at Proboscis monkey. It also helps if cavity and nose/mouth entrance are
> made so that they don't leak air out. Now look at those parts in humans,
> other apes, and Proboscis monkey. And so, and so, and so. Whoever is
> interested in those things, is welcome at Yahoo! AAT group. -- Mario
Yea, Mario, I think you're on to something here! Have you ever looked
at the circumference of the tip of your index finger? Why, it's the PERFECT
SIZE to fit your nostril, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is? Can you
put some sort of "wet ape spin" on that one?
Rich Travsky
What evidence do you ahve that it's an aquatic adaptation?
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> schreef in bericht
> > > The proboscis nose is the result of sexual selection
> > What evidence do you have for this statement?
No answer.
> What evidence do you ahve that it's an aquatic adaptation?
Why do you think I have evidence it's an aquatic adaptation?
Can't you answer a simple question??
Marc Verhaegen
"Dana Strausser" <ceda...@tds.net> schreef in bericht
news:e3Hr9.25770$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
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
>> > 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
"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
>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
> 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
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
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
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
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
> 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
"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
| The truth is, however, that there is nothing very "normal" about nature.
Fortunately.
David Timpe
| 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
"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
"Gerrit Hanenburg" <G.Han...@inter.nl.nomail.net.> wrote in message
news:tsh0ruon01a6crf1d...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > 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
|
| "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
Crocodiles lay eggs in water? Can you give a cite?
Thanks
Z
David Timpe
"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
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
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
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> schreef in bericht
news:ur3jsik...@corp.supernews.com...
> Dave's new in these parts.
He's not.
Richard Wagler
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
> | 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
"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
> 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
"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
Noted. Curious how you so readily embrace the fact that you cannot learn.
Marc Verhaegen
"Jason Eshleman" <j...@vici.ucdavis.edu> schreef in bericht
news:aothao$64s$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> >I have yet to see the first sensible sentence of this imbecil (note the
spelling, Eshleman).
> Noted. Curious how you so readily embrace the fact that you cannot learn.
:-)
Mario Petrinovic
news:DTis9.85025$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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
>> 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
> 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.
My point isn't that water wouldn't come in. I expect water to come
in, and for this I need volume of air that can be compressed before
respiratory system. The second point in that is that you have to prevent air
leakage. AFAIK U-shaped airway is best for this. Animals you've mentioned
don't have U-shaped airways (this all matters if nose cannot be closed). --
Mario
Gerrit Hanenburg
> 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 :
You have a wrong idea of the physics here. You seem to be thinking of
a kind of diving bell principle. The human respiratory system doesn't
work that way. If you dive with your mouth open without closing the
airway the water will simply enter the lungs via the bronchial tree
and replace the air (kind of a diving bell with an opening on top).
You will have to hold your breath by closing the glottis and close the
laryngopharynx (tongue-epiglottis mechanism) or else you will drown.
Gerrit
Algis Kuliukas
Rich is willfully misunderstanding you, Marc. No matter how many times
you write that swimming/diving is proposed to have come later, in the
Homo line, he just ignores you because that would mean he had to
actually engage in a meaningful debate about it. Another example of
intellectual cowardice.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> 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.
Bipeds yes, but not yet adapted to swimming/diving. How many times do
we have to spell out the model that we are proposing before you'll
actually make the effort to comprehend it?
1. Early LCA of Gorilla/Pan/Homo - bipedal wading & climbing adapted
(but not swimming diving adapted) in arboreal/semi-aquatic habitat.
2.1 Gorilla and then Pan branch off to more terrestrial but still
arboreal habitats. Hence knuckle-walking on land. Gorilla less so than
Pan hence more hydrophobia in Pan.
2.2 Homo split off away from arboreal habitats to more terrestrial,
but also more aquatic (e.g. coastal) ones. Hence full terrestrial
bipedalism and swimming/diving adaptaions.
> 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.
The fastest human stroke is the front crawl. The face (but not the
whole head) is immersed below the surface for most of the stroke.
Streamling of the nose would seem likely to contribute to drag
reduction there.
The most relaxing and least energetic stroke is the beack stroke.
There, having the nose out of the water with nostril shielded somewhat
by a hood would also be beneficial.
> Sexual selection would rank high on reasons for the shape of the human
> nose. There is plenty of biological precedent for such a notion.
How does that work? What evidence is there that anyone has ever
fancied anyone from the opposite sex because of having a large beaky
nose? What possible selective function could it have anyway?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
Hmph. Wha? Oh, I've just woken up, Jim. But the facts remain the same.
Next time you're looking down on people from a floor of a building and
look at their face from above but from a slight angle (the same angle
their face would be oriented against the water whilst swimming) you'll
see that the nose makes a point just like that at the front of a boat.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> 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.
Once again, Richard, you willfully ignore the comparative anatomy that
matters -the differences between Pan/Gorilla and Homo. Compared to
chimpanzees and gorillas we have long beaky noses that form a hood
over the nostrils. The early bipeds appear to have ape-like noses so
in just 3-4 my the evidence would suggest that the human nose has
expanded greatly.
How can this be accounted for?
The AAH has a simple explanation that is entirely consistent with the
rest of its proposed model - that it was an adaptation to help
swimming /diving. In this model it's entirely predictable and does not
need any 'chance happennings'.
The alternative models have nothing to say on it other than their
usual confusing, contradictory hotch-potch of head scratching "dunnos"
or to retreat to the safe and reliable sanctuary of serendipity.
Once again the most parsimonous explanation is rejected for no other
reason than it supports the heretical AAH which just cannot be right.
Yet another example of intellectual cowardice, Richard.
> 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.
I agree with you here. I agree that it would be expected that a fully
adapted diving hominid should be able to close its nostrils and that
we clearly cannot do so. How can the anomaly be resolved? As far as I
see it there are a number of possibilities:
Firstly it could be that ancestrally (say 1mya) our H. erectus
ancestors did have this ability but that it was lost more recently as
we moved towards a more terrestrial lifestyle. Nothing would remain in
the fossil record to indicate that they did or did not have that
ability and so it is difficult to think of some kind of test for that
hypothesis but it remains a distinct possibility.
Secondly (the view I favour) Homo sapiens might be the result of a
hybrid of hominids of differing aquaticism. If this was the case the
resulting hybrid might have lost such a specific adaptation that was
present in only one of the parental species.
Thirdly of course it is also posible that the resolution of this
anomaly is simply that it demonstrates that the structure of the nose
was never an adaptation for swimming at all (the view you clearly
take). However the simple fact that humans can swim better than any of
the 300-odd species of primate whereas Pan, our nearest relative, is
one of the most hydrophobic indicates that swimming ability must have
been selected for in the last few million years. Given this, it is
entirely expected that some human traits should reflect this ability.
The fact that you cannot concede that our undoubted swimming abilities
could have resulted in or been the result of *any* physical
adaptation, not even one as plain as the nose on your face, is clear
enough evidence of lack of intellectual courage and scientific
objectivity.
> Sorry but there is absolutely nothing in the human nose that
> speaks to an aquatic past.
Nothing? Not even that the nostrils all point down? Not even that the
bridge of the nose makes a pointed edge to the face rather like the
bow of a boat? Not even the fact that there is no better explanation
for it?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> 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.
I see what you are saying but you are again (I suspect willfully)
missing the point. Compared to chimps and gorillas, Richard, compared
to them we are better swimmers and divers. I have said many times that
the model does not propose that we were fully aquatic merely *more*
aquatic. As Dawkins has made clear many times in his books an
adaptation need not be perfect to be selected for and to give
selective advantage. Hooded nostrils are better, for a swimming/diving
hominid, that exposed nostrils.
> > > 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.
In other words - "serendipity, dunno but I *do just know* that it
cannot be water."
> > 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
It helps streamline the angled face. The wide square shoulders rotate
through the stroke (in the front crawl at least.) It's not perfect but
again it is *more* streamlined than having 'no nose' at all.
> > 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.
You cling to this old 'badly argued' argument as if it were some
indelible truth. But what does it mean? Where does it come from? The
AAH makes its case based on comparative anatomy and the fossil
evidence. It's far more logical and parsimonious than the
alternatives.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> 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?
Putting aside my first reaction - which is to think that this is some
typical Lorenzo piss take a la Pliocene Pussy Cat Theory - I think it
is as reasonable a theory as any other I have heard apart from the
swimming/diving one, of course. It certainly makes more sense to me
than the crazy sexual selection notion.
I can see a number of problems. First of all although having rain drip
down the nostrils would be an inconvenience, it's hardly going to be a
killer, is it? Therefore it's difficult to imagine the forces of
natural selection working to select 'wet nose dripping' specialist
hominids.
Secondly as the basic shape of the human nose (downward pointing
nostrils under a hood) seems to be a universal human trait you'd have
to be proposing that hunting in the rain became a speciality right at
the beginning of the Homo line when the H. sapiens speciation event
happenened in Africa. I doubt that such a specialised form of hunting
would have sustained them throughout the dry seasons.
So if you were serious - not a bad theory - if, as I suspect, you
weren't - well what's new?
Algis Kuliukas
Lorenzo L. Love
But you can imagine wet apes swimming so often and so fast that
streamlining of the nose is a survival trait? Why aren't our ears
streamlined? And what good is a streamlined nose when we have a big
blockly head and shoulders? Is that what you call streamlined? You
really need to stop grasping at every straw in an attempt to support an
unsupportable theory.
Marc Verhaegen
"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.ve...@village.uunet.be> schreef in bericht
news:3db1e7f5$0$6022$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> > 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.
> Seals vs. sealions generally is a good example, but not "monkeys
vs.gorillas". Marc
As Gerrit said, sex.dimorphism is not related to the ratio of the sexes
(this is 1:1), but it is strongly related to the ratio in the breeding
system, eg, polygyny (1 male : several females).
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
news:aou1g6$7m1$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
> 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.
Great, Mario! I think I know what you mean, see, eg, in Aiello & Dean 1990
"Introduction to hum.evol.anatomy" fig.13-11 p.240: the inverted U-shaped
airway in humans (but not in chimps) is not only best for not letting escape
air (less important IMO), but also for not letting water in: in a dipping
chimp, the water would flow right into the throat & lungs, but in humans,
the air pressure in the nasal cavity prevents this. But I think this is not
about snorkels, of course, but about siphons etc.?
> 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.
I don't think leakage from the lungs is important: it's not so difficult to
exhale underwater. And I think our tongue closes the oral cavity when we
swim underwater with open mouth, so there's no lung air that has to be
compressed (would be very dangerous I think).
> If you have openings like nose that you cannot close
Well, I guess our early coastal ancestor was able to close his nostrils, see
in Elaine's last book, p.164-5. Note H.erectus (who dispersed ca.1.8 Ma
along the coasts of the Mediterranean & Indian Ocean) was more prognathous
than we are, IOW, his upper lip was closer to his nostrils.
>, 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,
But AFAIK (not sure) the human nasal cacity is narrower than the chimp's,
see, eg, the erectile tissue on the inferior conchas. This is what we could
expect in incipent divers: lengthening & narrowing of the airways.
> 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
-- Mario
Small mouth? :-) See CF Hocket 1967 "The foundations of language in
man, the small-mouthed animal" Scient.Am.217:141-4.
Marc Verhaegen
news:3DB34082...@mindspring.com...
> 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.)
Very correct IMO. Our nose had another purpose. It's diffucult to find a
non-aquatic one.
Marc Verhaegen
> 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.
Most mammals already have their noses at the top (tangent), but not so apes
(nor camels).
> Many ungulates such as horses and camels have long snouts with
correspondingly long nasal passages. I don't think any trend can be
observed.
Such thinking stops science.
> 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.
So what?
> Human nostrils are not perfectly round nor are they slits.
Are they more slitlike than chimps'?
> 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.
Why do you have to keep your mouth closed??
> Sorry but there is absolutely nothing in the human nose that speaks to an
aquatic past. Rick Wagler
IYO.
Marc Verhaegen
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> schreef in bericht
news:77a70442.02102...@posting.google.com...
> > 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 [and
Mediterranean] coasts, lost most climbing abilities, and exploited waterside
resources." It's Homo that had an external nose, remember? Okidoki?
> Rich is willfully misunderstanding you, Marc. No matter how many times you
write that swimming/diving is proposed to have come later, in the Homo line,
he just ignores you because that would mean he had to actually engage in a
meaningful debate about it. Another example of intellectual cowardice.
Algis Kuliukas
Yes, Algis, I know: they're too lazy to read our papers, or too stupid to
understand, or simply cowards that don't want to admit they might be wrong.
Why do we waste our time with such people??
Marc Verhaegen
"Algis Kuliukas" <al...@RiverApes.com> schreef in bericht
> I can see a number of problems. First of all although having rain drip
down the nostrils would be an inconvenience, it's hardly going to be a
killer, is it? Therefore it's difficult to imagine the forces of natural
selection working to select 'wet nose dripping' specialist hominids.
Secondly as the basic shape of the human nose (downward pointing nostrils
under a hood) seems to be a universal human trait you'd have to be proposing
that hunting in the rain became a speciality right at the beginning of the
Homo line when the H.sapiens speciation event happenened in Africa. I doubt
that such a specialised form of hunting would have sustained them throughout
the dry seasons. Algis Kuliukas
I agree with you, of course, but the most important reason IMO why LLL's
idea is wrong is that no other terrestrial mammals have evolved such rain
shields. Chimps & gorillas live generally in more rainy places than humans.
Marc
Marc Verhaegen
"Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net> schreef in bericht
news:3DB4347B...@thegrid.net...
> But you can imagine wet apes swimming so often and so fast that
streamlining of the nose is a survival trait?
Why would we have to imagine that? Again: The human nose seems to have
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
If you can close your nostrils it does not matter which
way they point.
If you can't close your nostrils simple physics tells
you that pointing them downward helps not a bit
and makes breathing while swimming more difficult
and energy expensive than it needs to be.
As for the streamlined nose might as well put a keel
on a barge.
Your most parsimonious explanation is no explanation
at all.
Rick Wagler
Richard Wagler
Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Richard Wagler <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<3DB32DC2...@shaw.ca>...
> > 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.
>
> I see what you are saying but you are again (I suspect willfully)
> missing the point. Compared to chimps and gorillas, Richard, compared
> to them we are better swimmers and divers.
Sure. But our being better swimmers and divers has nothing
to do with humans having aquatic adaptations. We simply
don't have any.
> I have said many times that
> the model does not propose that we were fully aquatic merely *more*
> aquatic. As Dawkins has made clear many times in his books an
> adaptation need not be perfect to be selected for and to give
> selective advantage. Hooded nostrils are better, for a swimming/diving
> hominid, that exposed nostrils.
Nonsense. Might as well argue that hooded nostrils are
better suited to an animal that is regualrly having to deal
with dust storms in semi desert scrubland. And no I'm
not arguing this.
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> In other words - "serendipity, dunno but I *do just know* that it
> cannot be water."
Your 'water' explanation is nonsensical.
>
>
> > > 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
>
> It helps streamline the angled face. The wide square shoulders rotate
> through the stroke (in the front crawl at least.) It's not perfect but
> again it is *more* streamlined than having 'no nose' at all.
Then put keels on barges.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> You cling to this old 'badly argued' argument as if it were some
> indelible truth. But what does it mean? Where does it come from? The
> AAH makes its case based on comparative anatomy and the fossil
> evidence. It's far more logical and parsimonious than the
> alternatives.
It's comparative anatomy is incompetent when not downright
dishonest. There is no fossil evidence.
Rick Wagler
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Bagged another one, Lorenzo!
Gotta love it.....
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
> If you can close your nostrils it does not matter which way they point.
Simplistic thinking. Try a little harder. Same for the rest.
Marc Verhaegen
> Bagged another one, Lorenzo! Gotta love it..... Rick Wagler
You still don't get it (never will, of course): your savanna nonsense is no
better than LLL's rain theory.
Marc Verhaegen
> Sure. But our being better swimmers and divers has nothing to do with
humans having aquatic adaptations. We simply don't have any.
?? The biggest idiot of them all. You dive in sand perhaps?
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Gee does this mean that you will now thoroughly
misquote a reputable source to the effect that
the nostrils of aquatics and semi-aquatics tyically
point downwards?
Rick Wagler
Richard Wagler
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Thge master of the illogical non sequitur strikes again!
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
> > > If you can close your nostrils it does not matter which way they
point.
> > Simplistic thinking. Try a little harder. Same for the rest.
> Gee does this mean that you will now thoroughly misquote a reputable
source to the effect that the nostrils of aquatics and semi-aquatics
tyically point downwards? Rick Wagler
Again: it might be a bit more complicated than you think:
Lorenzo L. Love
That's a common characteristic of monomaniacal psychotics, no sense of
humor.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
"In the old days being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's
crazy."
Charles Manson
Charles
want to take the opposition POV?
I apologize that this had been partially discussed elsewhere in the thread...
like i said before, it has been difficult to read this ng in the last few
months with all the crossposting.
thanks
chas
Jim McGinn
> . . . the nose makes a point just like that at
> the front of a boat.
From now on I'm referring to my right and left
nostrils as starboard nostril and port nostril,
respecively.
Jim
firstjois
"Charles" <lmnoN...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3DB34082...@mindspring.com...
: 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.)
whites of
: eyes, penis, and a few other attributes can arguably be assigned to
sexual
: selection.
: the nose?
: thanks
: --chas
:
Hi Charles,
You know, sexual selection doesn't have much too much to do with sexual
attributes. It is more of a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" kind of
thing. Nose shape could be a matter of sexual selection if (for example)
nice pug noses indicated a solid English bloodline and a solid English
bloodline were a desirable thing. If the aristocracy came from France and
nice thin long noses were a signature of the aristocracy then they would be
considered lovely and the holders of such would be picked over those with
nifty English pug noses. It would be an example of sexual selection. If
it were true that gentlemen preferred blondes then that could be a basis of
sexual selection, hair color wouldn't change radically at puberty, right?
The only thing wrong with sexual selection today is that there are too many
of us to permit any temporary fads in sexual selection over run the grand
population numbers. Probably been true for a long long time.
Jois
Charles
I hear you, but also I was under the impression that a sexually-selected
trait usually was rather bizarre and had a tendency to become more
bizarre/emphasized after puberty. In my opinion, the nose does not meet that
attribute.
Meanwhile, I am still reading _A Mind so Rare_ by Merlin Donald and think
it would be a good read for anyone in this ng. (the belief in a wet or a dry
ape is irrelevant to Donald's thesis; he is all about consciousness and
evolution.). It is a good book. When I finish it, will get back to ya. I am
reading about 4 books at the same time.
--charles
Rich Travsky
>
> "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
This has WHAT to do with the notion of going aquatic to avoid sunburn????
Marc Verhaegen
> > > Sure. But our being better swimmers and divers has nothing to do with
humans having aquatic adaptations. We simply don't have any.
> > ?? The biggest idiot of them all. You dive in sand perhaps?
> Thge master of the illogical non sequitur strikes again! Rick Wagler
Swimmers & divers have nothing to do with aquatic... Swim in your savanna,
man.
Jason Eshleman
I'm baffled. How is it again that swimming has nothing to do with
aquaticism? [And yes, I fully expect Marc to respond with something along
the line of "Think and inform, man" followed by a lengthy reguripost where
he blasts the abstract to one of his papers, but I'd expect that
regardless.]
At least Marc's still paiting everyone who hasn't bit into garbage. Nice
to see there's some things that don't change.
Marc Verhaegen
not swimming-diving adapted) in arboreal/semi-aquatic habitat.
2.1. Gorilla and then Pan branch off to more terrestrial but still arboreal
habitats. Hence knuckle-walking on land. Gorilla less so than Pan, hence
more hydrophobia in Pan. 2.2. Homo split off away from
arboreal habitats to more terrestrial, but also more aquatic (e.g. coastal)
ones. Hence full terrestrial bipedalism and swimming/diving adaptations.
Algis
Excellent summary. Easy to understand.
> The fastest human stroke is the front crawl. The face (but not the whole
head) is immersed below the surface for most of the stroke. Streamling of
the nose would seem likely to contribute to drag reduction there.
The most relaxing and least energetic stroke is the beack stroke. There,
having the nose out of the water with nostril shielded somewhat by a hood
would also be beneficial. Algis Kuliukas
Good points.
Marc
Jason Eshleman
Algis Kuliukas <al...@RiverApes.com> wrote:
>Rich Travsky <REtr...@hotmail.comMOVE> wrote in message 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Bipeds yes, but not yet adapted to swimming/diving. How many times do
>we have to spell out the model that we are proposing before you'll
>actually make the effort to comprehend it?
>
>1. Early LCA of Gorilla/Pan/Homo - bipedal wading & climbing adapted
>
>2.1 Gorilla and then Pan branch off to more terrestrial but still
>arboreal habitats. Hence knuckle-walking on land. Gorilla less so than
>
>2.2 Homo split off away from arboreal habitats to more terrestrial,
>but also more aquatic (e.g. coastal) ones. Hence full terrestrial
>
>> 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.
>
>The fastest human stroke is the front crawl. The face (but not the
>whole head) is immersed below the surface for most of the stroke.
>Streamling of the nose would seem likely to contribute to drag
>reduction there.
And the crawl has been around how long? [You can't seriously be arguing
that this stroke is somehow innately responsible for facial-cranial
anatomy, can you???][
I suggest that you look at footage from the olympic 100 freestyle finals
from the 20s, 30s and 40s. You might notice something peculiar about the
evolution of the stroke.
Marc Verhaegen
"Jason Eshleman" <j...@veni.ucdavis.edu> schreef in bericht
news:ap2nfg$c4k$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> >> > > Sure. But our being better swimmers and divers has nothing to do
with humans having aquatic adaptations. We simply don't have any.
> >> > ?? The biggest idiot of them all. You dive in sand perhaps?
> >> Thge master of the illogical non sequitur strikes again! Rick Wagler
> >Swimmers & divers have nothing to do with aquatic...
is what Wagler claims, E.!
Algis Kuliukas
> That's a common characteristic of monomaniacal psychotics, no sense of
> humor.
The real joke here is that your piss take actually makes more sense
than most of the serious theories surrounding the nose.
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> But you can imagine wet apes swimming so often and so fast that
> streamlining of the nose is a survival trait? Why aren't our ears
> streamlined?
Compared to chimps they are.
> And what good is a streamlined nose when we have a big
> blockly head and shoulders?
Whilst swimming only the face is usually immersed. In the front crawl
the shoulders rotate so that the angle with the water is often
reduced.
> Is that what you call streamlined?
Compared to other apes, yes.
> You really need to stop grasping at every straw in an attempt to support an
> unsupportable theory.
Humans swim better than any other primate. Our nearest relatives, the
chimps are amongst the worst in water. Therfore, in the 5-7mya since
the lca whatever happenned probably involved water. That is not a
straw, Lorenzo. It's a basic difference in ability in one of the basic
media on the planet - locomotion through water. We have a number of
traits which, unlike any other primate, are in common with those found
in aquatic mammals. It is only logical therefore that other traits
that distinguish us from the apes might be explained in the same way.
At the end of the day, no matter how much you try to make fun of the
AAH you still cannot honestly address the issue, can you? Bearing in
mind the facts above, why must the AAH be wrong?
Algis Kuliukas
Algis Kuliukas
> > I see what you are saying but you are again (I suspect willfully)
> > missing the point. Compared to chimps and gorillas, Richard, compared
> > to them we are better swimmers and divers.
>
> Sure. But our being better swimmers and divers has nothing
> to do with humans having aquatic adaptations. We simply
> don't have any.
We don't have *any*? That's an amazing admission of a blinkered view
if ever I heard one.
First of all we have a significant amount of bouyancy from our sc fat
- that is the single most important reason why we can swim and chimps
can't. Of course you will argue it's just serendipity. We evolved fat
for something else and, phugh - wouldn't you believe it? it helps us
swim. Well what if it *wasn't* serendipity? Can you bring yourself to
consider that possibility?
Our nakedness is a trait that is only usually seen in aquatic mammals.
It has been shown that competitive male swimmers can shave 4% off
their swimming times and energy efficiency by shaving off their body
hair. Your response? - No. Not listening.
Our body shape is long and thin (in other words, streamlined) when
swimming in water compared to chimps/gorillas. Why's that? A pure
coincidence, no doubt. A side effect of terrestrial bipedalism perhaps
- or from standing tall in the mid-day equatorial sun.
We swim by cupping our hands and flapping our paddle-like feet. Apes
cannot rotate the meta-tarsals like we can and their feet are not flat
and paddle-like. Your response? The hand-traits must just be a
side-effect of tool making? And the feet, well what do you expect in a
terrestrial biped?
When we swim we need to control breathing very precisely. Only humans
among the Hominoidae have demonstrated the ability to hold breath
voluntarily. How's that? Oh yeah, a fortuitous side-effect of
bipedalism, wasn't it? How convenient.
The fact is all of these traits are down to interpretation. You simply
*choose* to interpret every one in the old orthodox way because it
would be heretical to admit that even one was a slight adaptation to
swimming. The fact is that they could all just as easily and much more
parsimoniously be interpreted as swimming adaptations.
The fact is we are the best swimmers/divers of the 300-primates
whereas chimps are amongst the worst. This is the case even from birth
before any cultural excuses can be made for it. If that is the case,
it is only logical that we should have a few physical traits that
allow it and therefore that natural selection favoured those traits
due to a greater exposure to the danger of drowning in our ancestors
than theirs.
The fact you cannot bring yourself to admit this simple fact that any
eight-year-old could see and instead put your hands over your eyes and
ears and keep rattling on "there are no aquatic adaptations at all,
none I tell you" shows your bias and yes, Richard, your intellectual
cowardice.
> > I have said many times that
> > the model does not propose that we were fully aquatic merely *more*
> > aquatic. As Dawkins has made clear many times in his books an
> > adaptation need not be perfect to be selected for and to give
> > selective advantage. Hooded nostrils are better, for a swimming/diving
> > hominid, that exposed nostrils.
>
> Nonsense.
So are you saying that someone with no nose and ape-like exposed
nostrils would be able to swim and dive as well as a 'normal' person?
> Might as well argue that hooded nostrils are
> better suited to an animal that is regualrly having to deal
> with dust storms in semi desert scrubland. And no I'm
> not arguing this.
At least it would be a logical argument. But, of course, you don't
want to do that. Fact is that even though you don't have a clue what
the nose is for you are amazingly certain it has nothing to do with
water. Where do you get that confidence from?
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > In other words - "serendipity, dunno but I *do just know* that it
> > cannot be water."
>
> Your 'water' explanation is nonsensical.
Oh yeah? It's nonsense that a group of apes that lived by water for
seven million years would actually evolve traits to help them survive
in such a habitat?
What is nonsensical is that we would become the best swimmers of all
the primates without having any traits that help to swim at all and
got that way without any significantly different pressure to survive
in water. That kind of thinking - that humans do not conform to the
usual laws of biology ands are just special somehow - belongs to the
creationists.
> > It helps streamline the angled face. The wide square shoulders rotate
> > through the stroke (in the front crawl at least.) It's not perfect but
> > again it is *more* streamlined than having 'no nose' at all.
>
> Then put keels on barges.
Barges are not built for speed.
> > > No, Algis, I'm committed to the belief that ideas as badly argued
> > > as the AAT probably have little or no value.
> >
> > You cling to this old 'badly argued' argument as if it were some
> > indelible truth. But what does it mean? Where does it come from? The
> > AAH makes its case based on comparative anatomy and the fossil
> > evidence. It's far more logical and parsimonious than the
> > alternatives.
>
> It's comparative anatomy is incompetent when not downright
> dishonest.
That's only because you are confused because you doggedly stick to
your black & white view that humans do not have the exact same traits
as the true aquatics. Your refusal to even accept what we are arguing
(that we *were* - not are - *more* aquatic - not fully aquatic) is
rather a dishonest approach, I'd say.
> There is no fossil evidence.
Practically every hominid ever found (and there have been thousands of
them) died in waterside niches. Not a single chimpanzee or gorilla
fossil has been found dated in the past 6my at all. That simple fact
exposes yet another of your oft repeated myths.
Algis Kuliukas