The Aquatic Ape
JTEM
For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
be right.
Now I'm not saying that "Aquatic Ape" in it's purest
form has to be 100% right, and I've had more than
my share of arguing with nimrods who see "Aquatic
Ape" and envision cartoon Sea Monkeys, but, still.,
it has to be right on some level.
Let me put it this way...
The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
regionalism," however limited. Maybe not Multi
Regionalism in it's purest form, maybe not half
way to it's purest.... maybe not a quarter of the
way, but it __Is__ Multi Regionalism, however
limited.
So what I'm saying is that Aquatic Ape has to
be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
is true to some extant.
r norman
wrote:
streams or lakes or rivers or oceans and could sometimes wade and
catch fish or clams then there is some validity to it. If you mean a
significant portion of human prehistory was spent fully immersed in
deep water, you are an idiot.
Well, that latter might be true in any event.
Klaus Hellnick
>
> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
> be right.
>
> Now I'm not saying that "Aquatic Ape" in it's purest
> form has to be 100% right, and I've had more than
> my share of arguing with nimrods who see "Aquatic
> Ape" and envision cartoon Sea Monkeys, but, still.,
> it has to be right on some level.
>
> Let me put it this way...
>
> The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
> interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
> regionalism," however limited.
> Maybe not Multi
> Regionalism in it's purest form, maybe not half
> way to it's purest.... maybe not a quarter of the
> way, but it __Is__ Multi Regionalism, however
> limited.
>
> So what I'm saying is that Aquatic Ape has to
> be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
> is true to some extant.
>
Klaus
>
>
Boikat
to have waded across a stream or two!
Boikat
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If by "Aquatic Ape" you mean some early humans
> could have lived near streams or lakes or rivers or
> oceans and could sometimes wade and
> catch fish or clams then there is some validity to it.
significant, that it was a factor in making us who we
are today.
> If you mean a
> significant portion of human prehistory was spent fully immersed in
> deep water, you are an idiot.
on what you just read in my post, you are retarded.
Seriously.
> Well, that latter might be true in any event.
JTEM
Klaus Hellnick <khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
> > interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
> > regionalism," however limited.
>
> In what possible sense? Please explain, because I sure don't see it.
carries the gene that Europeans supposedly
inherited from Neanderthals. That alone is multi
regionalism to some extent: Modern human
populations stemming from unique evolutionary paths.
Multi regionalism in it's purest form might say that
Europeans are Neanderthals, Asians are Peking Man
and Australian Aborigines are Java Man...
Not that they are separate species from different
planets, but that as our ancestors settled in different
parts of the world they became isolated and followed
their own unique paths.
> > So what I'm saying is that Aquatic Ape has to
> > be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
> > is true to some extant.
>
> This seems to also be a non sequitur.
Rolf
feel there is something to the hypothesis.
Triggered by your post I googled and found some interesting links
that I am going to check out. There is something with us humans
that still requires a good explanation!
Arkalen
>
> Klaus Hellnick<khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
>>> interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
>>> regionalism," however limited.
>>
>> In what possible sense? Please explain, because I sure don't see it.
>
> It's actually quite simple, really: Not every population
> carries the gene that Europeans supposedly
> inherited from Neanderthals. That alone is multi
> regionalism to some extent: Modern human
> populations stemming from unique evolutionary paths.
Ape theories (to whatever "extent" you're talking about) is.
Arkalen
>
> r norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If by "Aquatic Ape" you mean some early humans
>> could have lived near streams or lakes or rivers or
>> oceans and could sometimes wade and
>> catch fish or clams then there is some validity to it.
>
> I mean THAT, plus all this took was evolutionarily
> significant, that it was a factor in making us who we
> are today.
>
>> If you mean a
>> significant portion of human prehistory was spent fully immersed in
>> deep water, you are an idiot.
>
> If you honestly believe that to be an option, based
> on what you just read in my post, you are retarded.
say WHAT extent. We can't read your mind; all we can do is try and
clarify what you meant, for example by defining a lower and upper bound
on what "extents" of Aquatic Ape theories are out there.
So. Why don't you clarify what you meant in your post by giving some
precisions on WHICH aspects of Aquatic Ape theory you think must be
true. (saying at least one is correct is meaningless; all theories have
some bits of them that are correct, but if it's a trivial bit or a bit
that they share with competing theories it doesn't help much)
Chris Thompson
8c3856...@g29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
You might want to think about that.
Chris
Robert Camp
> JTEM wrote:
> > For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
> > how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
> > be right.
>
> > Now I'm not saying that "Aquatic Ape" in it's purest
> > form has to be 100% right, and I've had more than
> > my share of arguing with nimrods who see "Aquatic
> > Ape" and envision cartoon Sea Monkeys, but, still.,
> > it has to be right on some level.
>
> > Let me put it this way...
>
> > The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
> > interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
> > regionalism," however limited. Maybe not Multi
> > Regionalism in it's purest form, maybe not half
> > way to it's purest.... maybe not a quarter of the
> > way, but it __Is__ Multi Regionalism, however
> > limited.
>
> > So what I'm saying is that Aquatic Ape has to
> > be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
> > is true to some extant.
>
> So many years since I read Elaine Morgan's first book, and I still
> feel there is something to the hypothesis.
mind. I listened to one of her talks (on TED, I think) and came away
with an impression of her ideas as ill-conceived, willful, and a bit
reckless.
> Triggered by your post I googled and found some interesting links
> that I am going to check out. There is something with us humans
> that still requires a good explanation!
Gaga...republicans!?
RLC
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> You talked about "Aquatic Ape" being true "to some extent". You did not
> say WHAT extent.
JTEM
> You might want to think about that.
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2011/09/24 14:03), JTEM wrote:
> > It's actually quite simple, really: Not every population
> > carries the gene that Europeans supposedly
> > inherited from Neanderthals. That alone is multi
> > regionalism to some extent: Modern human
> > populations stemming from unique evolutionary paths.
>
> A pretty small extent, though.
version as was originally conceived.
Secondly, it's an absolute minimum. It's the the proven
extent of multi regionalism, it's the proven minimum.
As for anything other issues, this is a two way
medium. It's not necessary for me to explain anything
in minute detail before anyone else can voice an
opinion.
...unless you're claiming that your opinion on
Aquatic Ape theory is dependent on my opinion.
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
In the category "it baffles the mind"
>> Triggered by your post I googled and found some interesting links that
>> I am going to check out. There is something with us humans that still
>> requires a good explanation!
>
> Well that's certainly true. I mean, c'mon: scientologists, Lady
> Gaga...republicans!?
________________________________________
/ Well, I'm INVISIBLE AGAIN ... I might \
| as well pay a visit to the LADIES ROOM |
\ ... /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Hemidactylus*
>
> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
> be right.
>
> Now I'm not saying that "Aquatic Ape" in it's purest
> form has to be 100% right, and I've had more than
> my share of arguing with nimrods who see "Aquatic
> Ape" and envision cartoon Sea Monkeys, but, still.,
> it has to be right on some level.
> Let me put it this way...
>
> The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
> interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
> regionalism," however limited. Maybe not Multi
> Regionalism in it's purest form, maybe not half
> way to it's purest.... maybe not a quarter of the
> way, but it __Is__ Multi Regionalism, however
> limited.
>
> So what I'm saying is that Aquatic Ape has to
> be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
> is true to some extant.
evolutionary history, as have various species of bears. How much
selection pressure has being around water exerted though on us? I'm no
anthropologist, but I'd assume non-aquatic environments had the most
influence on the selective regimes of our ancestors.
Why do fences need to be placed around pools when toddlers are around?
If we were aquatic, I'd guess children drowning in pools wouldn't be so
common. How many young dolphins or whales drown? Seals? Penguins (a
shout out to Tux!)?
We can do OK in water. Right now a woman is swimming from Cuba to the
US, and after Portuguese Man O War stings she was still at it last I
heard. Humans can condition themselves to an aquatic environment. But
how adapted are we? Maybe we have some nonaptive spandrels that
facilitate our abilities to adjust our behaviors to an aquatic
immersion, but this isn't the same as being adapted by selection by that
environmental milieu in the past. We can doggy paddle, breast stoke etc
and have learned that holding the breath is a good idea under water,
regardless of what Patrick Duffy could do in "Man From Atlantis". We
learn how to adjust to different environments. Learning is different
than morphological and/or physiological adaption. Maybe there's some
degree of phenotypic plasticity involved as things like stronger muscles
and better breath control would come into play. But these come with
training and experience. Toddlers still, tragically enough, drown when
allowed to be around a pool without supervision. If we were more
aquatic, I would assume toddlers would have some sort of fixed action
pattern that would serve them well when immersed in water. A dog that
falls into a pool might know to paddle its way around without drowning.
How many puppies drown in pools I wonder. Are dogs generally considered
aquatically adapted in the same way as other carnivores that are more
aquatically driven?
And why does our skin prune when we are under water for any significant
amount of time? Yet we do so well out of water. How well do dolphins and
whales do out of water? This has tragic consequences when marine mammals
come ashore. Otters are more intermediate and can go into water or be on
land. Yet how much of our morphology, physiology, or behavior can be
accounted for as adaption for aquatic existence vs. spandrels which just
happen to better suit us for those time when we need to be in water?
Given a choice between swimming across a river or using a boat, what
would you do? We use technology to reduce the impacts of our adaptive
deficits.
Navy SEALs and other people highly trained for aquatic environments show
how far the limits can be pushed, but flippers, masks, and breathing
apparatus (tanks, regulators, snorkels) are very important technological
aids.
Some dog breeds take to water better than others, but are they "aquatic
dogs" in the same sense intended by the AAT? Some dogs love water,
others not so much. I'd imagine wolves have had some contact with water
in the past.
I find AAT interesting, in the same manner I find directed panspermia
interesting, but I don't think either are very compelling as they stand
right now.
--
*Hemidactylus*
Darwin is daemonic
JTEM
Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you'd ever heard her speak on the subject it might change your
> mind. I listened to one of her talks (on TED, I think) and came away
> with an impression of her ideas as ill-conceived, willful, and a bit
> reckless.
his ideas on evolution. It would be as wrong to state that
Darwin had to get everything absolutely right or evolution is
wrong as it is to say that the first instance of Aquatic Ape
theory had to be perfect or there is nothing to it.
Fact of the matter is, it's really a case where we (our
ancestors) had to spread along the coast lines, and there
seems little way this is possible unless we were exploiting
the coastlines -- the water.
The oceans were a fabulous source for brain-building
proteins. Even a few hundred years ago, in New England,
with native populations all down the coast, sea life was
so plentiful that people picked up lobsters along the
sure, usually from tidal pools. Lobster was so plentiful
that it was considered poor-mans food. Indentured
servants sometime contractually limited their masters
on the number of lobster dinners they could feed them.
Anyhow, people claim that it makes sense for our ancestors
to have built their brains chasing game to the point of
exhaustion for an evolutionarily significant period of time,
Yet, protein was free for the taking along the oceans.
There's also the common sense observation of our webbing,
our ability to hold our breath, our upright posture and our
lack of hair...
The spear also makes the most sense to me in an aquatic
environment. It's useful for not only finding and digging clams
but spearing fish. Outside a forested environment, a spear
makes little sense as a hunting weapon. It requires you to
stand less than a spear's-length from your prey. For fishing
though, there's nothing dangerous about spearing (at least
in shallow waters).
But, most of all is the fact that the sea shore was our highways.
It was our road, our means for spreading across the continents.
And this, well, and this pretty much requires that we were
exploiting the oceans. We would have no other reasons to be
following the coast.
*Hemidactylus*
She may be a cultural hybrid or Madonna and Marilyn Manson and not
musically to my liking, but she doesn't deserve to be lumped in with
those others. And she has been against homophobia, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga#LGBT_advocacy
And she, alongside fellow pop star PZ Myers, has raised the hackles of
the Catholic League:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1881
She might have unintentionally punctured the smug filled balloons of the
self-righteous PETA celebrities with her meat dress:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11297832
http://www.metro.co.uk/music/840850-lady-gaga-defends-meat-dress-by-claiming-shes-no-piece-of-meat
She isn't anti-immigration:
http://www.latina.com/entertainment/music/fernando-alejandro-latinos-behind-lady-gaga
I had a knee-jerk reaction to her from the outset, but the more I hear
about her the more I kinda admire her, though I doubt I'll listen to her
music. Maybe she pisses people off for all the right reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga
Arkalen
What example ? The only concrete thing you gave in your post was about
multi-regionalism theory; I agree that this was a specific example of an
extent to which multi-regionalism theory is true.
But that has nothing to do with aquatic ape theory. Care giving an
example of what extent you're thinking about for that one ?
*Hemidactylus*
to an ancestral aquatic environmental break down to the Gouldian schema
of nonaptive spandrels (does the illusion of "webbing" between our
fingers and toes serve any function aside from painfully getting caught
in something or rubbed raw by sandals) or co-optive exaptations, where
something suited for another purpose can fortuitously be improvised for
another use (like the adaption of breathing for exchange of gases in
lungs voluntarily stopped to prevent water from entering the respiratory
apparatus)? Our ability to breath hold is a nascent adaptation in the
context of evolution. If it were a fully co-opted function for an
aquatic environment, toddler drownings in swimming pools would not be
such a problem. It would have become an action pattern, deeply engrained
into the human psyche as a result of a previous long endured selective
regime. Toddlers would instinctively react to immersion, unless there's
some sort of window that present day children have passed beyond where
early water exposure would condition them via adaptive future
predisposition to future immersion with less chance of drowning. It's a
good idea to teach kids to swim, but at an early age they are still
vulnerable.
An ignorant question...at what age do marine iguanas start jumping into
water?
How well are our eyes adapted to seeing under water vs. on land? Why do
swimmers tend to use goggles? This might be a stretch for me, but how
well are we adapted to parasites or other infections borne via aquatic
environments vs, land environments? I often hear of the threat of amoeba
in fresh water killing people when it enters via nose or ears. What
other threats should we be adapted to in water?
Maybe we are mildly adapted to limited water exposure vs. full blown
aquatic apeness. That I could handle better. But why does our skin prune?
*Hemidactylus*
How do we compare to a sperm whale. That might be an unfairly extreme
example, but how physiologically prepared are we for an aquatic
environment? We might fortuitously be able to hold our breath long
enough to dive for a clam with a very valuable pearl, but did evolution
prepare us for this, beyond exaptive co-optability, nonaptive spandrels,
and general phenotypic plasticity?
We can train ourselves to be competent swimmers, but many of us just
flounder around in the water (which is a disparaging remark about water
capable flounders and an opening for punsters). I am not exactly the
best swimmer in the world. Toddlers around pools and people dying due to
rip currents and floods show how dangerous aquatic environments are for
humans. If we were so-called aquatic apes, I don't think these tragedies
would be as prevalent.
If we were aquatic apes, there wouldn't need to be heroic, highly
*trained* Coast Guard divers like Ashton Kutcher and Kevin Costner.
r norman
wrote:
>
one to think that humans had anatomical and physiological adaptations.
Living on the shore line and finding aquatic food does not mean
swimming in the water to the extent required. Modern peoples without
developed technology find excellent ways to exploit aquatic habitats
as a food source and means of travel without immersing themselves in
the water. Early humans no doubt did likewise.
Spears are, indeed, useful at the shore. They are also useful inland.
William Morse
agent could tell you that humans evolved close to water. Your arguments
(along with others) tell us that we did not evolve _in_ the water.
r norman
ape business. No doubt we both simply skimmed the post too quickly
because if JTEM says he used an example it must be there.
*Hemidactylus*
(peace be upon his name) spandrels and exaptations. Both are important
in this argument IMO. Our skin is a good barrier to protect our innards
from the "elements". It helps prevent flow of stuff in our out to a
certain extent. So it is good to have when in a river or the ocean. Can
you imagine the problems we would have with salinity at the beach if our
skin didn't do what it did? But did *our* skin, aside from distant
pre-tetrapod ancestor covering precursors, evolve for an aquatic
environment more proximally. It can hold up against water, but then it
started pruning.
Look at this record setters hands:
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/september/313400/Diver-sets-new-world-record-in-Groveland
I applaud his effort, but do his hands look messed up to you?
And I likewise applaud this effort:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/24/general-cb-cuba-swimming-to-florida_8698981.html
Neither supports AAT. People have taught dogs to surf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOv7mPV4rS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JujbOPb-Zxg
And squirrels to waterski:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxKwesCKJk
It's only when a surfing dog encounters a waterskiing squirrel and the
dog says (in translated Barkese) "Mmmmm lunch!" when instincts take over
and the predator emerges.
Arkalen
>
> Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> (2011/09/24 14:03), JTEM wrote:
>>> It's actually quite simple, really: Not every population
>>> carries the gene that Europeans supposedly
>>> inherited from Neanderthals. That alone is multi
>>> regionalism to some extent: Modern human
>>> populations stemming from unique evolutionary paths.
>>
>> A pretty small extent, though.
>
> So? It's still Multi Regionalism, just not the extreme
> version as was originally conceived.
concept, so if something true can be referred to as "Multi Regionalism"
then "Multi Regionalism" is true.
That's not completely invalid, but the reality is that theories tend to
be combinations of several elements, and the theories themselves aren't
usually unique - many variants will exist at any one time, any one of
which could be referred to by the unique theory name. Often some
variants will be so minimal as to be almost trivially true while others
are really extreme, and what most people mean when using the actual term
will lie somewhere in the middle.
So again, saying a theory is true "to some extent" is meaningless.
Define what extent we're talking, and what the significance is.
>
> Secondly, it's an absolute minimum. It's the the proven
> extent of multi regionalism, it's the proven minimum.
>
> As for anything other issues, this is a two way
> medium. It's not necessary for me to explain anything
> in minute detail before anyone else can voice an
> opinion.
>
> ...unless you're claiming that your opinion on
> Aquatic Ape theory is dependent on my opinion.
>
theory in relation to aquatic ape theory, I asked what the relationship
between the two was. If you want people to voice actual opinions about
what you write, as opposed to asking for clarifications, maybe you
should practice writing more clearly the first time around.
r norman
>(2011/09/25 7:21), JTEM wrote:
>>
>> Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (2011/09/24 14:03), JTEM wrote:
>>>> It's actually quite simple, really: Not every population
>>>> carries the gene that Europeans supposedly
>>>> inherited from Neanderthals. That alone is multi
>>>> regionalism to some extent: Modern human
>>>> populations stemming from unique evolutionary paths.
>>>
>>> A pretty small extent, though.
>>
>> So? It's still Multi Regionalism, just not the extreme
>> version as was originally conceived.
>
>You're treating the word "Multi Regionalism" as if it refers to a single
>concept, so if something true can be referred to as "Multi Regionalism"
>then "Multi Regionalism" is true.
>
>That's not completely invalid, but the reality is that theories tend to
>be combinations of several elements, and the theories themselves aren't
>usually unique - many variants will exist at any one time, any one of
>which could be referred to by the unique theory name. Often some
>variants will be so minimal as to be almost trivially true while others
>are really extreme, and what most people mean when using the actual term
>will lie somewhere in the middle.
>
>So again, saying a theory is true "to some extent" is meaningless.
>Define what extent we're talking, and what the significance is.
In the context of JTEMS claim that the Aquatic Ape notion is true "to
some extent", that might mean some early protohumans got rained on
and so adapted to water. It would be interesting for him to propose
exactly to what extent it is true. Some actual evidence would be
nice, too.
Arkalen
>
> Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you'd ever heard her speak on the subject it might change your
>> mind. I listened to one of her talks (on TED, I think) and came away
>> with an impression of her ideas as ill-conceived, willful, and a bit
>> reckless.
>
> Darwin wasn't even aware of genes when he was forming
> his ideas on evolution. It would be as wrong to state that
> Darwin had to get everything absolutely right or evolution is
> wrong as it is to say that the first instance of Aquatic Ape
> theory had to be perfect or there is nothing to it.
single thing wrong with it. That would be as ridiculous as claiming it's
validated because there's one single thing right with it. Yet again the
only meaningful statement that can be made here is finding out to what
extent it's true. "Some extent" isn't precise enough to be useful.
>
> Fact of the matter is, it's really a case where we (our
> ancestors) had to spread along the coast lines, and there
> seems little way this is possible unless we were exploiting
> the coastlines -- the water.
and "water" are two different environments (although to be fair "water"
is as much of an environment as "land" is, i.e. waaay to vague).
More to the point, coastlines are a transitional environment that
involves many, many niches and the organisms that exploit it can run
almost the whole gamut between land-adapted and seawater-adapted. Where
are we on the continuum ?
>
> The oceans were a fabulous source for brain-building
> proteins. Even a few hundred years ago, in New England,
> with native populations all down the coast, sea life was
> so plentiful that people picked up lobsters along the
> sure, usually from tidal pools. Lobster was so plentiful
> that it was considered poor-mans food. Indentured
> servants sometime contractually limited their masters
> on the number of lobster dinners they could feed them.
theory relies on early humans living enough in the water that they got
water-specific adaptations; a historical example of humans picking up
lobsters from tidal pools doesn't bring much.
>
> Anyhow, people claim that it makes sense for our ancestors
> to have built their brains chasing game to the point of
> exhaustion for an evolutionarily significant period of time,
> Yet, protein was free for the taking along the oceans.
in New England, and no protein is ever "free". Fishing and gathering
seashells takes time and effort too.
>
> There's also the common sense observation of our webbing,
> our ability to hold our breath,
> our upright posture
I'd never heard of that being a characteristic trait of aquatic animals.
Those examples that do occur to me, like cormorans, are all divers.
Needless to say, diving and picking lobsters from tidal pools are very
different activities. Modern humans do both, but which of these is it
we're assuming early humans did so much that they derived specific
adaptations for it ?
> and our lack of hair...
>
> The spear also makes the most sense to me in an aquatic
> environment. It's useful for not only finding and digging clams
> but spearing fish. Outside a forested environment, a spear
> makes little sense as a hunting weapon. It requires you to
> stand less than a spear's-length from your prey.
a world where bows and atlatls hadn't been invented yet.
> For fishing
> though, there's nothing dangerous about spearing (at least
> in shallow waters).
>
> But, most of all is the fact that the sea shore was our highways.
> It was our road, our means for spreading across the continents.
> And this, well, and this pretty much requires that we were
> exploiting the oceans. We would have no other reasons to be
> following the coast.
>
doing it in a way that will make us evolve important adaptations for
aquatic living.
How much are you suggesting the early humans exploited the oceans ? In
what way, diving ? Spearing fish in shallow pools ? Picking up shellfish
from tidal pools ? Which aspects of their lifestyles would have made an
upward gait adaptive ? And hairlessness ? And holding our breath, and
webbing ?
I mean, every example you bring up of a way of exploiting the ocean and
how it could explain a human trait makes some sense on its own, but they
don't all seem to be compatible with each other.
Robert Camp
> She may be a cultural hybrid or Madonna and Marilyn Manson and not
> musically to my liking, but she doesn't deserve to be lumped in with
> those others. And she has been against homophobia, see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga#LGBT_advocacy
>
> And she, alongside fellow pop star PZ Myers, has raised the hackles of
> the Catholic League:
>
> http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1881
>
> She might have unintentionally punctured the smug filled balloons of the
> self-righteous PETA celebrities with her meat dress:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11297832
>
>
> She isn't anti-immigration:
>
> http://www.latina.com/entertainment/music/fernando-alejandro-latinos-...
> I had a knee-jerk reaction to her from the outset, but the more I hear
> about her the more I kinda admire her, though I doubt I'll listen to her
> music. Maybe she pisses people off for all the right reasons:
the extent there actually was one).
RLC
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> What example ?
The one you noticed later (but before you
posted this), and responded to.
That one.
JTEM
*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We can train ourselves to be competent swimmers, but many of us just
> flounder around in the water (which is a disparaging remark about water
> capable flounders and an opening for punsters). I am not exactly the
> best swimmer in the world. Toddlers around pools and people dying due to
> rip currents and floods show how dangerous aquatic environments are for
> humans. If we were so-called aquatic apes, I don't think these tragedies
> would be as prevalent.
during the Second Word War... again.
On the other hand, you can fill whole libraries with the idiots
going off about "endurance running" nonsense, when a
casual glance around them would reveal that people are walkers...
What I'm saying is, yes, there are issues with Aquatic Ape,
though there are larger issues with competing theories.
Besides, Aquatic Ape can be boiled down to two points:
#1. Early ancestors exploited the oceans.
#2. This exploitation was long enough or significant enough
to have an impact on our evolutionary development.
JTEM
, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> You're treating the word "Multi Regionalism" as if it refers to a single
> concept,
fantasy land.
> And that's completely nonsensical.
> You brought up multi regionalism
> theory in relation to aquatic ape theory,
example of something that was confirmed as
true, but not in the way/extent it initially described
and/or usually envisioned.
> I asked what the relationship
> between the two was.
as Person-C is to Person-D, it just not logically follow
that I am claiming a relationship between Persons A
and C.
Now let your head explode...
> If you want people to voice actual opinions about
> what you write,
I write, and if your opinion on the topic I raised is in
any way dependent in me, you need to learn to think
instead of merely reacting.
JTEM
, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In the context of JTEMS claim that the Aquatic Ape notion is true "to
> some extent", that might mean some early protohumans got rained on
> and so adapted to water.
JTEM
, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're an idiot. Seriously.
> Living on the shore line and finding aquatic food does not mean
> swimming in the water to the extent required.
You're saying that exploiting an environment doesn't lead to
a species evolving to suit that environment.
Rolf
Should we take into account that the proposed aquatic period would have been
millions of years back in time, and probably not 'very' long?
Rolf
One problem is that we don't have any(?) information about the environment
during the hypothetised aquatic period. The way I see it, it would have to
be
rather isolated and somewhat unique but not unthinkable.
Although much of the geological history of the Afar(?) region seems to be
known.
Rolf
is no theory of aquatic apes.
But AAT to me looks like a more handy acronym than AAH
Rolf
Arkalen
I have no clue which one you're talking about. It can't be the one where
you talk about multi-regionalism, because I said already in the post
you're responding to and the one responding to that post that I don't
see the link between multi-regionalism and the aquatic ape hypothesis.
If there is one it would behoove you to explain it instead of throwing
out cryptic statements. And it can't be the post where you give a
general rundown of ALL the extents to which the aquatic ape hypothesis
could be true with only the barest hint of logical inference linking the
more extreme bits to the more trivial bits, because according to my
newsreader you posted that BEFORE the post where you say you gave an
example.
So color me still not understanding what you're talking about.
Arkalen
"standard" formulations also include lists of specifically human
features that came about by this "impact on our evolutionary
development", and precisions on the manner and extent to which early
humans exploited the ocean.
As is, your formulation is not only minimalistic, it's so vague that the
only response one can have to that is "sure, maybe". A hypothesis needs
to be a bit more precise to be useful.
Jeffrey Turner
>> Living on the shore line and finding aquatic food does not mean
>> swimming in the water to the extent required.
>
> You're saying that exploiting an environment doesn't lead to
> a species evolving to suit that environment.
physiology, not so much.
--Jeff
Arkalen
>
> , Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> You're treating the word "Multi Regionalism" as if it refers to a single
>> concept,
>
> This is inexplicable. Seriously. You are living in a
> fantasy land.
>
>> And that's completely nonsensical.
>
> You have no idea what you're saying.
>
>> You brought up multi regionalism
>> theory in relation to aquatic ape theory,
>
> Well, not quite. I raised the latter as a real world
> example of something that was confirmed as
> true, but not in the way/extent it initially described
> and/or usually envisioned.
>
>> I asked what the relationship
>> between the two was.
>
> If I say that Person-A is as closely related to Person-B
> as Person-C is to Person-D, it just not logically follow
> that I am claiming a relationship between Persons A
> and C.
>
> Now let your head explode...
Yeah. You realize this is only a meaningful statement if "related to" is
a norm that applies to the space containing people A, B, C and D. If the
distance of the relationship between A and B isn't something I can
measure and then apply the same measure to the relationship between C
and D, saying that C and D are as closely related as A and B are is not
very useful.
As it happens, I've never heard of "extent of trueness" being a norm
that applies across theories. What does it mean that multi-regionalism
is true to the extent that Europeans contain a few percentage points of
Neanderthal DNA; is there a number I should be able to calculate from
that statement, that I can apply to aquatic ape theory to figure out
exactly which aspects of the theory could be true there for the "extent"
to be the same ?
Of course not. You just meant that multi-regionalism is something that
turned out to be true to a little extent, and aquatic ape theory could
also turn out to be true to a little extent.
But I asked to WHAT extent you think aquatic ape theory would be true.
"Some extent, like multi-regionalism theory" is not an answer. "The same
extent as multi-regionalism theory" is meaningless.
Maybe you don't understand the question ? When I ask "to what extent is
X true", what I'm asking is "what are the aspects of X that are true ?".
"Early humans exploited the ocean intensively enough that it affected
their evolutionary development", which you've said in another post, is
actually a decent answer to the question, in that it IS an answer to the
question. It's too vague to be very useful though.
>
>> If you want people to voice actual opinions about
>> what you write,
>
> I couldn't give a shit less about your opinion on what
> I write, and if your opinion on the topic I raised is in
> any way dependent in me, you need to learn to think
> instead of merely reacting.
Again with the thing about my opinion on the topic being dependent on
what you write; what does that even mean ? Why would you think it is ?
No JTEM, your being completely incomprehensible in your writings doesn't
affect my opinion on anything but your ability to be comprehensible. It
DOES, however, affect my ability to respond to you coherently. It's
called "communication".
Like this : "It's not necessary for me to explain anything in minute
detail before anyone else can voice an opinion."
If you couldn't give a shit less about the opinions people voice what
does it matter how much detail you explain things in ? In fact if you
don't care whether people voice an opinion or not, why do you post in a
conversational medium ?
r norman
JTEM's minimialistic formulation is no formulation at all.
#1. What early ancestors exploited oceans in what location in what
way?
#2. How long and in what way significant? In order to have a
significant impact on our evolutionary development, those early
ancestors must have been the specific population on the direct
ancestral line to modern humans and must have had such a major pattern
of exploitation as to change significantly anatomical and
physiological characteristics. Wading in water to acquire aquatic
creatures as food sources isn't going to do the job.
Rolf
sandpipers, pelicans, ducks, oystercatchers, penguins.
Steven L.
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b341c4d-7f13-49cf...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
an ocean-going environment. Everything you mentioned--hairlessness,
upright posture, etc.--has evolutionary value right here on land.
Compare that with certain species of aquatic birds, which have
*specific* seagoing adaptations like webbed feet, or heads strong enough
to resist the impact of diving head first into the water from a great
height. Or cetaceans, which have evolved kidneys and other organs to
drink brine safely.
Mammals need water even more frequently than they need food. An
"aquatic ape" would have evolved the ability to drink ocean water like
cetaceans do. That didn't happen.
Humans aren't even good swimmers. Children have to be taught how to
swim. But many species of mammals do it instinctively. A newborn
dolphin does it from the moment it's born.
-- Steven L.
Rolf
Does it have to be an ocean shore?
Nick Keighley
> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
> be right.
why not?
> Now I'm not saying that "Aquatic Ape" in it's purest
> form has to be 100% right, and I've had more than
> my share of arguing with nimrods who see "Aquatic
> Ape" and envision cartoon Sea Monkeys, but, still.,
> it has to be right on some level.
why? I'm always suspicious of "must be" areguments. Particualrly where
no evidence or argument is advanced for the statement.
"The Noah's Ark story /must be/ based on an actual flood." why? Was
Babayaga's hut with hens feet based on an actual russian peasant
woman's hut?
> Let me put it this way...
>
> �The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
> interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
> regionalism," however limited. Maybe not Multi
> Regionalism in it's purest form, maybe not half
> way to it's purest.... maybe not a quarter of the
> way, but it � __Is__ �Multi Regionalism, however
> limited.
don't see the connection. And it's a pretty feeble version of MR.
> So what I'm saying is that Aquatic Ape has to
> be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
> is true to some extant.
which bits? Upright stance? body fat? diving reflex? hairlessness?
sweating? And when did the aquatic bit actually happen? It seems
little more than a Just So story to me.
*Hemidactylus*
>>> Living on the shore line and finding aquatic food does not mean
>>> swimming in the water to the extent required.
>>
>> You're saying that exploiting an environment doesn't lead to
>> a species evolving to suit that environment.
>
> Human technology has certainly evolved to exploit the oceans. Human
> physiology, not so much.
neighborhood pool. I also enrolled in some swim lessons. Yet I was
amazed what a pair of flippers could do for my ability to propel myself
through the water. I felt like Superman. If I were adapted to water
would I need flippers?
Given that we sweat when it's hot, I would assume we have some level of
adaptation to moisture being on our skin. This might have a co-optable
side benefit of helping us deal with momentary exposure to immersion,
but not enough to prevent pruning.
Nick Keighley
ourselves to agree with him. Perhaps he's got anoxia from holding his
breath too long.
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2011/09/25 7:41), JTEM wrote:
> > Fact of the matter is, it's really a case where we (our
> > ancestors) had to spread along the coast lines, and there
> > seems little way this is possible unless we were exploiting
> > the coastlines -- the water.
>
> Your double dash is equating two things that are different.
No. I'm identifying a particular environment which our ancestors
had to exploit.
JTEM
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> See, that is
Okay, thus far you have done an excellent job at
voicing your feelings towards what I have written,
but you STILL haven't spilled a word on the subject.
Here, all me to spell it out for you AGAIN: If your
opinion on the matter is in any way, shape or form
based on mine, you really have no opinion, simply
knee jerk.
You're welcome.
JTEM
> Yeah. You realize this
It's shocking -- truly shocking -- that you can waste
so much time of frivolous opinions on how I've
worded things, and not one person here has noticed
that you;ve yet to offer a single relevant word.
Harpman? I mean, who else craves piss this much?
You have to be Harplip posting under a different name...
JTEM
"Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> Should we take into account that the proposed aquatic period would have been
> millions of years back in time, and probably not 'very' long?
with Glacial Maximums when sea levels were at their lowest.
JTEM
> he expects us to be so stunned by his insight
How long have you believed you can read minds, and
have you discussed this with a mental health
professional yet?
JTEM
> When I was quite young my dad started teaching me to swim at the
> neighborhood pool. I also enrolled in some swim lessons. Yet I was
> amazed what a pair of flippers could do for my ability to propel myself
> through the water. I felt like Superman. If I were adapted to water
> would I need flippers?
Like a clam? Shrimp? Crabs?
Dude, you people are trying so hard to prove how smart you are
that you're not even noticing each others idiocy, much less you're
own.
Stop that.
JTEM
> Human technology has certainly evolved to exploit the oceans. �Human
> physiology, not so much.
Quite the opposite. It appears that we evolved to exploit the
oceans -- everything from hairlessness to our webbing. Even
our upright posture and larger brains fit the model -- just
becoming upright is a cheap, efficient means for becoming
taller, allowing you to wade in deeper water (like during
high tides), and sea food isn't just filled with protein, but oodles
of that brain-building stuff.
Yum.
JTEM
"Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> AFAIK, there is nothing in human physiology that is uniquely suited to
> an ocean-going environment.
and I can't place it within the context of what I said.
> Everything you mentioned--hairlessness,
> upright posture, etc.--has evolutionary value right here on land.
piece of speculation makes the most sense.
Not only do those anatomical changes better fit the Aquatic
Ape, but so doesn't important technology like the spear. A
stabbing spear, as I pointed out, is a very poor hunting weapon
under most conditions, and the Savannah would be included
under the "Most." They;re a great war weapon (Alexander
the Great is said to have once chosen a broken spear over
his sword in battle), but a lousy hunting weapon under most
circumstances.
.....except for fishing,
> Compare that with certain species of aquatic birds, which have
> *specific* seagoing adaptations like webbed feet,
Sea Monkeys here, instead of a species exploiting the sea.
JTEM
> One problem is that we don't have any(?) information about the environment
> during the hypothetised aquatic period. The way I see it, it would have to
> be rather isolated and somewhat unique but not unthinkable.
glacial periods would have connected isolated groups.
JTEM
> why? I'm always suspicious of "must be" areguments. Particualrly where
> no evidence or argument is advanced for the statement.
Ironically, the argument is better and nobody is interested in
looking for any evidence.
(It's under water)
But lets look at the Savannah nonsense, with it's "Endurance
Running" joke. That goes something like: The climate changes,
the environment changes and our ancestors dropped the hair,
picked up rocks and chased down prey until it dropped.
> "The Noah's Ark story /must be/ based on an actual flood." why? Was
> Babayaga's hut with hens feet based on an actual russian peasant
> woman's hut?
Hmmm.... this is idiocy. We know there were glaciers. We know
that there were changes to the environment. In fact, these things
are built into the status quo nonsense. That part at least isn't
speculation at all. For the last few million years at least the
earth has been seeing alternating periods of warm & ice.
> And it's a pretty feeble version of MR.
You said it: It's Multi Regionalism.
Burkhard
Strangely enough, most humans are capable in varying degree of
accuracy to attribute correct mental states to the people they
interact with, based on observing their external behaviour.
Even some of the other primates have that ability, if in rudimentary
form: Premack, D. G. & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a
theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 515-526.
Of course, the ability varies between people, and to some it might
well appear magical: Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U (1985). "Does
the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'?" Cognition 21 (1): 37�46
Arkalen
And as I said in the rest of the paragraph that you snipped (along with
the many other paragraphs that made up the rest of the post), "water"
isn't a "particular" environment, it's a very vague word that can
describe many, many, many different environments. Moreover, "coastlines"
isn't even one of those environments. It's a transitional environment
that has some water, some land, shares features with all-land and
all-water environments, but also has its own characteristics. Organisms
that exploit this environment aren't adapted to "water", they're adapted
to coastlines. As far as water-adaptation goes, this translates into a
range going from fully water-adapted to fully land-adapted. Early humans
could perfectly well exploit the coastlines intensely while being in the
latter part of that range.
It's almost appropriate that you snipped the rest of the post, because
really it all boiled down to that : you've been picking different,
kinda-related concepts and putting them together in a paragraph as if
they were logically connected when they aren't.
*Hemidactylus*
> *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I was quite young my dad started teaching me to swim at the
>> neighborhood pool. I also enrolled in some swim lessons. Yet I was
>> amazed what a pair of flippers could do for my ability to propel myself
>> through the water. I felt like Superman. If I were adapted to water
>> would I need flippers?
>
> Like a clam? Shrimp? Crabs?
All you list are inverts that live in water. Not a valid comparison to
humans.
Clams pretty much sit still and filter feed. Humans aren't going to lay
at the bottom of an estuary and filter feed all day as sessile aquatic
organisms are they? Shrimp can do that spastic undulation thing and move
about pretty good by flexing the tail, and are quite adapted to swimming
in water with specialized legs:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/pub/seascience/shrimp.html#loco
I think aquatic apes would be more comparable to other mammals like
dolphins, whales, and seals which all are good at swimming fast. Hippos
lumber around and might not be the best swimmers, but they don't have to
be because...they are hippos. Nobody messes with them. Humans in water
are susceptible to gators, hippos, sharks and other baddies.
> Dude, you people are trying so hard to prove how smart you are
> that you're not even noticing each others idiocy, much less you're
> own.
>
> Stop that.
You are arguing for a theory that is not well received. You should
expect people are going to express skepticism.
r norman
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'?" Cognition 21 (1): 37�46
This is all correct in assuming that the people you interact with have
normal intelligence, reasoning powers, and mental states.
Unfortunately, your recent instance inferring some insight into
another's mind fails in these regards.
Arkalen
>
> Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>> See, that is
>
> Okay, thus far you have done an excellent job at
> voicing your feelings towards what I have written,
> but you STILL haven't spilled a word on the subject.
o_O
What feelings ?
Your reading comprehension seems to be on par with your ability to
express yourself. But then, it would be.
If you want some positive statements on Aquatic Ape theory, here are a few :
- Things like hairlessness, webbed fingers, upright posture and the
ability to hold one's breath are quite significant physiological
characteristics that would only evolve from a very important driver. If
they were going to evolve from, say, humans swimming, those humans would
be swimming almost all the time.
- The way humans have historically exploited coastlines is very
different from swimming almost all the time. In fact it has historically
involved very little swimming at all. The main exception I can think of
is pearl divers. They're a tiny minority of humans and live in a very
different environment from early humans. Moreover, they HAVE got
physiological adaptation to diving (whether evolutionary or plastic)
that other humans don't share. This suggests that humans can evolve (or
plastically adapt) for diving more than they have, and that they can do
so fast. So if early humans had been diving enough to have an
evolutionary effect, that effect wouldn't have been subtle.
- If we do assume always-swimming pearl-diving early humans, it isn't
clear how this would result in the combination of upright posture,
webbed fingers, hairlessness and ability to hold our breath that we
have. Most aquatic animals aren't hairless; actually, isn't it just the
cetaceans ? Who are big (but that's OK, we're big too), and are VERY
aquatic. It is completely ridiculous to suggest humans used to be as
aquatic as cetaceans, but even if we don't it appears hairlessness is a
rather advanced feature for aquatic animals, so if our hairlessness came
from an aquatic lifestyle it would suggest we were very aquatic.
Similarly, our upright posture is a very significant evolutionary
change. It is even less clear how that would evolve from an aquatic
lifestyle, given most upright aquatic animals seem to be diving birds
and most humans who go into water don't do so by diving from a great
height. If one were to seriously propose that the upright posture
evolved from an aquatic lifestyle one would need to give some mechanism
for it. But if it DID evolve that way, the fact that it's such a
significant evolutionary change suggests that the aquatic lifestyle was
just as significant, i.e. humans were very aquatic indeed, for a long time.
On the other hand, our fingers aren't very webbed at all. It's hardly
appropriate to even call them "webbed", especially compared to other
apes who also have large palms. In fact, given our hands are so similar
to other apes' hands, it is extremely unlikely that they evolved by the
same pressures that gave us our hairlessness and upright posture (in
which we are unlike other apes). So in other words, if we were indeed
aquatic our webbed fingers are unlikely to have anything to do with it.
But if we were aquatic, how come we don't have much more webbed fingers
than we do ? That suggests a marginally aquatic lifestyle at best.
Same thing with holding our breath. Tons of non-aquatic animals can hold
their breath, and actual diving animals can hold their breath for much
longer than we can. They also have other diving adaptations which we
don't or barely have. This suggests that if human evolution was ever
influenced by an aquatic phase it would have been marginally aquatic.
So while every one of those traits could be attributed to aquatic
adaptations if we squint, their combination is inconsistent.
- When we look at how humans have historically exploited coastlines it
appears that we we were to have evolved to do so it would be as coastal
land animals, not aquatic animals. The kind of adaptations we'd expect
would be less related to water and more related to, say, salt tolerance.
- While it is extremely likely that humans evolved near water (although
I'd expect rivers to be as significant if not more than the sea), and we
might even have some specific adaptations related to that, it is highly
unlikely that the most important adaptations that distinguish us from
other apes such as hairlessness, upright posture, speech, intelligence
etc came as a result of an aquatic lifestyle. There is no real evidence
or mechanism for it.
>
> Here, all me to spell it out for you AGAIN: If your
> opinion on the matter is in any way, shape or form
> based on mine, you really have no opinion, simply
> knee jerk.
>
> You're welcome.
>
Again with that bizarre conceit that my opinions are based on yours. Weird.
Arkalen
> , Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. You realize this
>
> It's shocking -- truly shocking -- that you can waste
> so much time of frivolous opinions on how I've
> worded things,
avoid answering my question with verbal sleight of hand.
> and not one person here has noticed
> that you;ve yet to offer a single relevant word.
theory or at least your version of it and you snipped it all after the
first line. I've just posted an even longer one a few minutes ago, I
can't wait to see which three words of it you'll deign respond to.
>
> Harpman? I mean, who else craves piss this much?
> You have to be Harplip posting under a different name...
Arkalen
Except that by the time you're wading neck-deep you're better off
swimming. You have more mobility, and since you need to bend down to
pick up or catch things anyway there's no particular need to be upright.
And "wading" and "swimming" are extremely different water-related
lifestyles. Wading organisms are more land-adapted than water-adapted.
Why would wading early humans evolve hairlessness ?
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> And as I said in the rest of the paragraph that you snipped (along with
> the many other paragraphs that made up the rest of the post), "water"
> isn't a "particular" environment,
with the very first post.
Reading comprehension, baby. It's all about reading
comprehension...
> it's a very vague
bandwidth, a half dozen or so posts, and all you've established
is that you didn't like my wording.
I honestly don't give a damn. If you ever decide to bang out
something on topic, do let me know.
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> > Quite the opposite. It appears that we evolved to exploit the
> > oceans -- everything from hairlessness to our webbing. Even
> > our upright posture and larger brains fit the model -- just
> > becoming upright is a cheap, efficient means for becoming
> > taller, allowing you to wade in deeper water (like during
> > high tides), and sea food isn't just filled with protein, but oodles
> > of that brain-building stuff.
>
> > Yum.
>
> Except that by the time you're wading neck-deep you're better off
> swimming.
> You have more mobility,
Again, you're assuming they are in the water to travel...
> And "wading" and "swimming" are extremely different water-related
> lifestyles.
Nathan Levesque
> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
> be right.
>
> form has to be 100% right, and I've had more than
> my share of arguing with nimrods who see "Aquatic
> Ape" and envision cartoon Sea Monkeys, but, still.,
> it has to be right on some level.
>
>
> �The recent evidence on Neanderthal/Modern
> interbreeding is actually confirmation of "multi
> regionalism," however limited. Maybe not Multi
> Regionalism in it's purest form, maybe not half
> way to it's purest.... maybe not a quarter of the
> way, but it � __Is__ �Multi Regionalism, however
> limited.
>
> be true to some extant, just as Multi Regionalism
> is true to some extant.
Isn't the main idea that certain traits are explained by sustained
aquatic activity in our ancestors, ie the selective pressure that lead
to trait X is sustained aquatic activity? Or do you not care about
that?
JTEM
*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> All you list are inverts that live in water. Not a valid comparison to
> humans.
> Clams pretty much sit still and filter feed. Humans aren't going to lay
> at the bottom of an estuary and filter feed all day as sessile aquatic
> organisms are they?
like in the ads you used to see in the back of comic books
or "Boys Life."
I can't be responsible for your limited thinking.
*Hemidactylus*
South Park expert modeling:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154798/transpecies
That's about all the seriousness you deserve.
Kermit
> �*Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > We can train ourselves to be competent swimmers, but many of us just
> > flounder around in the water (which is a disparaging remark about water
> > capable flounders and an opening for punsters). I am not exactly the
> > best swimmer in the world. Toddlers around pools and people dying due to
> > rip currents and floods show how dangerous aquatic environments are for
> > humans. If we were so-called aquatic apes, I don't think these tragedies
> > would be as prevalent.
>
> If the fate of an individual really maters, we went extinct
> during the Second Word War... again.
How so?
"If the fate of an individual doesn't matter, we went extinct
during the Second Word War.."
Please explain why this is wrong,
> On the other hand, you can fill whole libraries with the idiots
> going off about "endurance running" nonsense, when a
> casual glance around them would reveal that people are walkers...
How many aquatic animals can run down antelopes -
Just us?
>
> What I'm saying is, yes, there are issues with Aquatic Ape,
> though there are larger issues with competing theories.
What makes you think that we are more adapted to aquatic
life than we are to:
mountains, jungles, deserts, or arctic tundra?
>
> Besides, Aquatic Ape can be boiled down to two points:
>
> #1. �Early ancestors exploited the oceans.
And mountain ecosystems, and jungle ecosystems,
and desert ecosystems, and tundra.
>
> #2. �This exploitation was long enough or significant enough
> to have an impact on our evolutionary development.
See above.
Kermit,
a running ape.
David Iain Greig
>
> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
> be right.
Message-IDs posted by the poster of the same name.
This will mean that persons using a newsreader who can
'score' articles based on the Message-ID: header can do so
with this persons posts. Likewise, followups to the poster
will include these Message-ID:s in the References: header,
so all replies to his posts can likewise be awarded the duly
appropriate Score:
My other idea for a tag to use was "pisswhore-" which has a
certain association with the poster in my mind.
--D. 'no thanks needed, this one's on me'
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
David Iain Greig
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
>> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
>> be right.
>
> I will be editing the filters to add the tag "JTEM-" to all
> Message-IDs posted by the poster of the same name.
I made it "pisswhore-jtem-" as a prefix to the message-id.
I just couldn't pick the more appropriate one.
--D. 'now to edit my Score file'
Arkalen
>
> Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> And as I said in the rest of the paragraph that you snipped (along with
>> the many other paragraphs that made up the rest of the post), "water"
>> isn't a "particular" environment,
>
> I guess that's why I keep mentioning the coast, starting
> with the very first post.
>
> Reading comprehension, baby. It's all about reading
> comprehension...
>
>> it's a very vague
>
> You have to be harpman, because you've burned all this
> bandwidth, a half dozen or so posts, and all you've established
> is that you didn't like my wording.
Do you even know what "vague" means ?
It's not a matter of wording, it's a matter of substance. Or lack of it,
in that case.
Of course if there actually *is* substance to your position, the fact
that you haven't expressed that substance in your posts *is* a matter of
wording. Except that you're blaming us for it for some reason.
(of course your other posts have shown that there is a little substance
to your position - and that it's contradictory and ill-thought out, so
of course your only recourse to look even a little bit right is to take
refuge in ultra-vague statements. Very well-chosen wording in other words)
>
> I honestly don't give a damn. If you ever decide to bang out
> something on topic, do let me know.
>
it given you certainly didn't respond to it, but really it's rather
pointless to make substantive responses to you : you snip it all except
for five words and claim I'm nitpicking over wording. Or you don't
respond at all, in the case of that other post...
Arkalen
>
> Arkalen<arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>>> Quite the opposite. It appears that we evolved to exploit the
>>> oceans -- everything from hairlessness to our webbing. Even
>>> our upright posture and larger brains fit the model -- just
>>> becoming upright is a cheap, efficient means for becoming
>>> taller, allowing you to wade in deeper water (like during
>>> high tides), and sea food isn't just filled with protein, but oodles
>>> of that brain-building stuff.
>>
>>> Yum.
>>
>> Except that by the time you're wading neck-deep you're better off
>> swimming.
>
> No. "Swimming" is a form of locomotion.
saying "move around". Have you ever even been to the sea ? How far deep
did you wade ? I assure you, it becomes cumbersome some time before
you're up to your neck. Especially if you're looking for things in the
water.
>
>> You have more mobility,
>
> Again, you're assuming they are in the water to travel...
crustaceans and wish to do so in the most effective manner. Also, there
might be predators lurking.
Rolf
highest; flooding the Afar region?
Guess I need an update on the AAH.
r norman
wrote:
when the levels rose.
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> There's also the common sense observation of our webbing,
I have seen more webbing on the feet of leaf beetles.
> our ability to hold our breath,
Sounds adaptive for people who lived around smoky campfires, or washed
their faces, or stalked prey stealthily.
> our upright posture
Like the upright posture of seals, whales, manatees, and other aquatic
mammals?
> and our lack of hair...
I have never understood how this is an aquatic adaptation. Polar bears
and otters probably share my puzzlement.
> The spear also makes the most sense to me in an aquatic
> environment.
Chimpanzees use spears.
> But, most of all is the fact that the sea shore was our highways.
> It was our road, our means for spreading across the continents.
> And this, well, and this pretty much requires that we were
> exploiting the oceans. We would have no other reasons to be
> following the coast.
But how far back in our evolutionary history does traveling on water go?
My impression is that we were human before that.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
>> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
>> be right.
>
> I will be editing the filters to add the tag "JTEM-" to all
> Message-IDs posted by the poster of the same name.
>
> This will mean that persons using a newsreader who can
> 'score' articles based on the Message-ID: header can do so
> with this persons posts. Likewise, followups to the poster
> will include these Message-ID:s in the References: header,
> so all replies to his posts can likewise be awarded the duly
> appropriate Score:
>
> My other idea for a tag to use was "pisswhore-" which has a
> certain association with the poster in my mind.
Rolf
> On 09/25/2011 12:28 PM, JTEM wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus*<ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When I was quite young my dad started teaching me to swim at the
>>> neighborhood pool. I also enrolled in some swim lessons. Yet I was
>>> amazed what a pair of flippers could do for my ability to propel
>>> myself through the water. I felt like Superman. If I were adapted
>>> to water would I need flippers?
>>
>> Like a clam? Shrimp? Crabs?
>
> All you list are inverts that live in water. Not a valid comparison to
> humans.
>
> Clams pretty much sit still and filter feed. Humans aren't going to
> lay at the bottom of an estuary and filter feed all day as sessile
> aquatic organisms are they? Shrimp can do that spastic undulation
> thing and move about pretty good by flexing the tail, and are quite
> adapted to swimming in water with specialized legs:
>
> http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/pub/seascience/shrimp.html#loco
>
> I think aquatic apes would be more comparable to other mammals like
> dolphins, whales, and seals which all are good at swimming fast.
> Hippos lumber around and might not be the best swimmers, but they
> don't have to be because...they are hippos. Nobody messes with them.
> Humans in water are susceptible to gators, hippos, sharks and other
> baddies.
Gators maybe, but sharks?
http://nelsonearthimages.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/dsc_2354.jpg?w=640&h=412
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5ru4mc3
Rolf
Rolf
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b341c4d-7f13-49cf...@d17g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> , r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The oceans were a fabulous source for brain-building
>>>> proteins. Even a few hundred years ago, in New England,
>>>> with native populations all down the coast, sea life was
>>>> so plentiful that people picked up lobsters along the
>>>> sure, usually from tidal pools. Lobster was so plentiful
>>>> that it was considered poor-mans food. Indentured
>>>> servants sometime contractually limited their masters
>>>> on the number of lobster dinners they could feed them.
>>>
>>>> Anyhow, people claim that it makes sense for our ancestors
>>>> to have built their brains chasing game to the point of
>>>> exhaustion for an evolutionarily significant period of time,
>>>> Yet, protein was free for the taking along the oceans.
>>>> There's also the common sense observation of our webbing,
>>>> lack of hair...
>>>
>>>> but spearing fish. Outside a forested environment, a spear
>>>> makes little sense as a hunting weapon. It requires you to
>>>> stand less than a spear's-length from your prey. For fishing
>>>> though, there's nothing dangerous about spearing (at least
>>>> in shallow waters).
>>>> But, most of all is the fact that the sea shore was our highways.
>>>> It was our road, our means for spreading across the continents.
>>>> And this, well, and this pretty much requires that we were
>>>> exploiting the oceans. We would have no other reasons to be
>>>> following the coast.
>>
>>> one to think that humans had anatomical and physiological
>>> adaptations.
>>
>> You're an idiot. Seriously.
>>
>>> Living on the shore line and finding aquatic food does not mean
>>> swimming in the water to the extent required.
>>
>> You're saying that exploiting an environment doesn't lead to
>> a species evolving to suit that environment.
> AFAIK, there is nothing in human physiology that is uniquely suited to
>
> enough to resist the impact of diving head first into the water from
> a great height. Or cetaceans, which have evolved kidneys and other
> organs to drink brine safely.
>
> Mammals need water even more frequently than they need food. An
> "aquatic ape" would have evolved the ability to drink ocean water like
> cetaceans do. That didn't happen.
Maybe because aqua is not synonymous with ocean?
>
> Humans aren't even good swimmers. Children have to be taught how to
> swim. But many species of mammals do it instinctively. A newborn
> dolphin does it from the moment it's born.
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.
Mitchell Coffey
> On 9/25/11 9:00 PM, David Iain Greig wrote:
>> JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
>>> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
>>> be right.
>>
>> I will be editing the filters to add the tag "JTEM-" to all
>> Message-IDs posted by the poster of the same name.
>>
>> This will mean that persons using a newsreader who can
>> 'score' articles based on the Message-ID: header can do so
>> with this persons posts. Likewise, followups to the poster
>> will include these Message-ID:s in the References: header,
>> so all replies to his posts can likewise be awarded the duly
>> appropriate Score:
>>
>> My other idea for a tag to use was "pisswhore-" which has a
>> certain association with the poster in my mind.
>
> "Pisswhore" is someone else. JTEM characterizes himself as "Pisspimp".
>
Mitchell Coffey
JTEM
so obvious that some of the regulars here may
notice.
Yes, you're THAT bad....
this isn't a literally club, I don't give a damn how you
feel about the way I worded things, you're a mindless
little piss whore who has not contributed a single on
topic word.
JTEM
, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> All you list are inverts that live in water. Not a valid comparison to
> humans.
Make up your mind....
> I think aquatic apes would be more comparable to other mammals like
> dolphins, whales, and seals which all are good at swimming fast.
think cartoon Sea Monkeys....
Now if you dial it back some, and throw in some actual thinking,
it makes far more sense than any Savannah nonsense....
JTEM
"Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
> > Wrong. It would have been several periods -- corresponding
> > with Glacial Maximums when sea levels were at their lowest.
>
> Strange, I have always thought it was when the ocean level was it it's
> highest; flooding the Afar region?
> Guess I need an update on the AAH.
Ape theory in it's purest form is correct.
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You need low ocean levels so that the evidence would be eradicated
> when the levels rose.
were much lower during glacial maximums (which,
by the way, lasted much longer than the interglacial
periods, like the one we're in), and we do know for a
fact that archaeologically rich areas lie under water.
(Psst. At present, the status quo says man left Africa
via the horn -- straight in the Arabian peninsular. In other
words, the status quo is dependent upon a passage
which currently lies under the sea, along with all the
evidence)
Man, you're an idiot....
JTEM
r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> This is all correct in assuming that the people you interact with have
> normal intelligence, reasoning powers, and mental states.
submerged evidence, and instead going with a theory that
relies heavily on submerged evidence....
JTEM
> Message-IDs posted by the poster of the same name.
that.
William Morse
> Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> why? I'm always suspicious of "must be" areguments. Particualrly where
>> no evidence or argument is advanced for the statement.
>
> Ironically, the argument is better and nobody is interested in
> looking for any evidence.
>
> (It's under water)
>
> But lets look at the Savannah nonsense, with it's "Endurance
> Running" joke. That goes something like: The climate changes,
> the environment changes and our ancestors dropped the hair,
> picked up rocks and chased down prey until it dropped.
I agree. That explains the loss of hair because the antelopes and horses
are all hairless? Human hair loss appears to be best explained by lack
of need for temperature control coupled with ease of surface parasite
removal, although the influence of avoiding readily burning hair in a
population that depended on fire is also worth noting.
JTEM
Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > , Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > he expects us to be so stunned by his insight
>
> > How long have you believed you can read minds, and
> > have you discussed this with a mental health
> > professional yet?
>
> Strangely enough, most humans are capable in varying degree of
> accuracy to attribute correct mental states to the people they
> interact with, based on observing their external behaviour.
Strangely, you're full of shit, beginning with the fantasy that
you're interacting with me. Secondly, if anyone here is even
aware of my position they have yet to make that much clear.
When one is incapable of accurately paraphrasing the words
spelled out in front of them, the odds of them correctly predicting
a mood -- much less intentions -- are beyond "Low."
r norman
wrote:
What does any of this have to do with an aquatic ape nonsense? At the
time you mention, the passage did not require swimming.
JTEM
Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2011/09/26 10:21), JTEM wrote:
> > I guess that's why I keep mentioning the coast, starting
> > with the very first post.
>
> > Reading comprehension, baby. It's all about reading
> > comprehension...
>
> Same to you, sweetheart.
been talking about the coast -- making that much clear
from the very beginning -- and you really were talking about
water. Here, piss whore, I'll quote you:
: And as I said in the rest of the paragraph that you snipped (along
with
: the many other paragraphs that made up the rest of the post),
"water"
: isn't a "particular" environment,
form a legitimate response, and when i ignored your
nonsense about "water" you got upset.... Sheesh!
You need to stop your pissing and try to say something
on topic, Hartmint.
JTEM
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > There's also the common sense observation of our webbing,
>
> I have seen more webbing on the feet of leaf beetles.
Now, in a discussion on human evolution, which should we
be looking at?
> > our ability to hold our breath,
> Sounds adaptive for people who lived around smoky
> campfires,
our breathing less than a million years ago. In other
words, Homo erectus couldn't possibly have talked,
according to you, because he lacked the ability to
control his breath.
According to your claim, controlling our breath would
have FOLLOWED the mastery of fire, and the best
evidence for that, which I am aware of, is under 800K
years old.
> or washed their faces, or stalked prey stealthily.
> > our upright posture
>
> Like the upright posture of seals, whales, manatees, and other aquatic
> mammals?
Ape" and insist they read "Comic book Sea Monkeys."
> > and our lack of hair...
>
> I have never understood how this is an aquatic adaptation. Polar bears
> and otters probably share my puzzlement.
And, Polar Bears and Otters aren't concerned with drying off.
> > The spear also makes the most sense to me in an aquatic
> > environment.
>
> Chimpanzees use spears.
Secondly, Chimps are so contaminated by humans, we
can't base too much on observations of their behavior.
> > But, most of all is the fact that the sea shore was our highways.
> > It was our road, our means for spreading across the continents.
> > And this, well, and this pretty much requires that we were
> > exploiting the oceans. We would have no other reasons to be
> > following the coast.
>
> But how far back in our evolutionary history does traveling on water go?
And at least 2 million years it seems.
> My impression is that we were human before that.
pacific quite a way back. If the theory that Homo floresiensis
is descended from Homo habilis, than quite a spell before
even that.
My personal view is that interbreeding is and always was
the key. It's funny, but where we can look for it we do find
it -- Neanderthals and even Chimps. Populations were one,
then they got separated only to meet once again after
each had followed it's own evolutionary path for a while:
Interbreeding.
The coming and going of the glaciers would have been the
perfect engine for this. Glaciers grow and you can cross
from the horn of Africa into the middle east, and from there
Europe, Asia and the island beyond. Glaciers shrink and
your highways vanish under the seas.
JTEM
We're not talking about scuba divers with harpoon
guns.... Sheesh!
> >> You have more mobility,
>
> > Again, you're assuming they are in the water to travel...
>
> Nope. I'm assuming they're in the water to look for fish or delicious
> crustaceans and wish to do so in the most effective manner.
explain it please?
*Hemidactylus*
>
> Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> There's also the common sense observation of our webbing,
>>
>> I have seen more webbing on the feet of leaf beetles.
>
> ...and not on Gorillas or Chimps.
>
> Now, in a discussion on human evolution, which should we
> be looking at?
>
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/82fe7c09056c7c30
A foolish consistency...
David Hare-Scott
say what one likes and freedom to read what one chooses. There are plenty
of moderated groups and blogs where you would have been banned long ago. Do
you have any reason why it should not be made easy to skip your material or
those who choose to reply to it?
D
*Hemidactylus*
John S. Wilkins
[SEOWOFA]
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
jillery
>>>
>>> For the life of me, try as I might, I can not fathom
>>> how some semblance of Aquatic Ape theory can't
>>> be right.
>>
>> Message-IDs posted by the poster of the same name.
>
>
>I just couldn't pick the more appropriate one.
>
>--D. 'now to edit my Score file'
So if someone were so inclined, how would they take advantage of this
tag that you have just added?