why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?

RAZD,Are you and I reading the same thing? I read the same site. This is obviously a glass half full or half empty situation.The author said the skull of Ramidus was situated atop the spinal column, which indicates it was bipedal.The teeth look a lot chimp, but they do exhibit hominid leanings. This proves Ramidus was just recently split off from the chimp line. Obviously they are going to share characteristics, even if behavior has radically changed.The amazing thing is we are looking at a being that is shortly removed from a chimp, yet it is already going through the spinal, pelvis, foot changes that facilitates bipedal walking and swimming.You mention dropping down from the trees to gather nuts and tubers. Ramidus was living with pigs and hippos. This was waterworld much of the year, if not always. Ramidus had to forage during the wet period. You know how many species flood in to the flood plains now. It is a world of abundance.If nearly chimp Ramidus was at least partly bipedal, it was using this advantage for water foraging just as well as wading.Think of the advantages! The big carnivores are not a threat, accept crocs, and they can be neutralized. Food is plentiful. You only have to swim to get to it. Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

I resent you lumping me in with creationists. I am nothing of the sort. The fact is Leakey's awkward stretching for the berries model just isn't necessary anymore.Even though Archaeopteryx was staring them in their face, paleontology academics stuck with a totally unsubstantiated idea a lizard climbed a tree and jumped off.They were wrong wrong wrong, and their stubbornness held up real science for decades.Generally speaking, paleontologists concern themselves with the morphology of their subject. Evolutionary trends are an energetic discussion.The savannah model arose, because our fossil finds started way up the tree where creatures like Bosei, Handy Man, and Erectus were spreading all over. The earlier evolution of our species was unknown when the savannah model was adopted.The associated biotic evidence for Ramidus and Aferensis are almost exclusively aquatic and semi aquatic.Check out this scientific paper:Page not found – River Apes (… Coastal People)The notion of Savannah evolution is no longer applicable. If you look at recent literature you can find writers saying so, and that we must rethink bipedal and naked ape evolution. Afarensis invigorated the discussion of semi aquatic nature, and Ramidus underscores it's viability, Plain and simple.

I have been doing a lot of reading on both sides. One notion that surprised me is the savannah explanation is a straw man according to one aquatic origin antagonist. "Went out ten years ago," he wrote. The same fellow mentioned there are no bipedal aquatic mammals. He was missing the point entirely. All aquatic mammals have their rear quarters in line with their bodies. We swim horizontally too. Apes can't.That's what gets me. Anti aquatic story folks do not have a model of their own. The Savannah model is dead. It was held up as gospel against the aquatic ape. Now we know Ramidus lived in thick wet forests. So now we are suppose to still take the academic's word thick forest was the cradle for hominid development, except there is no model. Of course there's those pesky conservative chimps and gorillas making a model difficult to arrive at.You say your feet don't help much when you swim. Did you watch the Olympics at all? If you did you would have heard the announcer talking about strong kicking driving the swimmer to the wall all the time.Also, do you know what 8 gold medal Michael Phelps looks like? He has a powerful build, long torso, short legs, and long arms. Do you know what Lucy looked like? She had a powerful build, long torso, short legs, and long arms.I know, I know, just another coincidence.Just like our legs are in line with our spine, and that works wonders for swimming as well as walking. And we are virtually naked, and that works wonders for swimming again, but not walking about in the sun. We can choose to hold our breath through our nose or mouth.All coincidences that can be explained away, only not by any other ape adaptation. It's just that taken all together along with others constitutes a lot of circumstantial evidence with which we should hang this guy.

I reported the two ways of looking how birds evolved, because the obvious way was kissed off for many decades by self centered anthropologists.I also have said Mary Leakey suggested the early hominids learned to stand on two legs by reaching for berries as antelopes do. That was bible.We have even been arguing savannah vs aquatic adaptations. That is not a valid comparison, because academia has pulled their savannah model off the table. Seems they moved their study to thick forests. Ramidus caused this. It is recorded dwelling in a thickly forested flood plain, and that has the real scientists scratching their heads. At least I haven't seen any new theory yet.I am quite eager to read anything that makes our very fast dramatic changes understandable.It is my belief our upright posture was developed in well less than a million years. That radical change can only be imagined in an isolated evolution boiler plate like the Galapagos Islands. There, land Iguanas became aquatic out of hunger. They are still iguanas. They need to return to shore for warming up. If I remember right, they had half a million years to accomplish this feat, about the time upright walking took.

You are right, there is not enough knowledge to make any evolutionary pressure seem feasible to explain our radical departure from our ape cousins, and in short order too.For decades we were exhibited skulls showing different stages of human development. A gradual straightening up seemed very plausible. Lucy blew holes in that model, because she was very nearly a chimp head on a human body.Ramidus fossils were found in the nineties. A toe bone, and part of a pelvic cradle made the new find almost certainly upright. The fossils were found among a rather deep strata that was deemed encompassing a million years back to 5.5 million years ago. The place where he lived was wet and wooded.Human genome geneticists have been consistently telling us we split from chimps some 5 million years ago. Whether they are a bit wrong, or the fossil dating is a bit off, it leaves a very narrow period for the body wrenching process pulling our legs underneath us. It seems so rapid a development to me I have visions of our first walker stretched out on a medieval torture rack.Paleontologists can find and describe the fossils. We all can read what they deduce. The process of environmental forces on evolution Is more art than science, when there is no evidence of how our forbares evolved. Quaint sayings like, "The hominid stood erect to peer over the grass," are the norm. There really was nothing else to say, because it even that was imaginative anyway.It is our knowledge just how readily we gracefully take to the water that has some of us wondering about our beginnings. I am untrained in swimming. I never mastered the crawl, but I can get by with a very fast side stroke. I have free dived 60 feet collecting conches off the Yucatan. At the time I could hold my breath for nearly 3 minutes. I'd like to see a chimp do that.Working backward in time, at what point do we think a hominid did not have this easy taking to water? We had the build for it all the way back to Ramidus. We did not have the intelligence, but my swimming strokes really were instinctual.

The Macaque Monkey is known to dive into the water to catch crabs. We have also seen them take potatoes into the salty water to flavor them. Early hominids would have been better at using such food sources. Their shoulder socket would allow holding onto shore plants as they reach for crabs and a myriad of other foods. They would also find their arm movements ideal for swimming.As I have pointed out, their nudity would facilitate parasite removal, quick drying, and smooth gliding. That came later. Their bipedalism would allow deep wading, fast swimming, and deep diving. The adipose fat is a great insulator and smoother.We know some of us still wade, swim out, and dive for sea food. I did that for years. Where do we draw the line for this behavior up the hominid tree? We know they had the arms, legs, and build that could fascilitate swimming. When did they become nude? I would argue at the outset, when uprightness was attained.If Macaques are smart enough to use aqueous food who can say Ramidus and Afarensis weren't?

I know all this talk is hypothetical. The question is whether the aquatic model is plausible.The first bipedal apes were virtually defenseless. A prey that can't accelerate to 45 mph or burrow or fly up a tree is lunch to a leopard or lion.The upright posture is perfect for tool use. That comes much later. What did frail Lucy do to survive to adulthood?Again, we easily swim and dive. That is because of our peculiar adaptations. These talents are not necessary for survival anymore. At what time did our anatomically correct ancestors find these traits necessary for survival, and if not, why evolve in that direction?

Hi Bluescat48Thanks for joining the conversation.I am not saying we were once a mayfly larvae, waiting to to emerge and flyWhat I am saying is our peculiar adaptations point to something of an obsession with water foraging. This would have been a very beneficial survival strategy when we came down from the safety of the trees.Nakedness, smoothing adipose fat, salt elimination, and swimming prowess are good tools to use while you wait for a bigger brain to guide you to the moon.I bet tool making started with the crushing of clams with rocks. Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

There is a Borneo primate called the Proboscis Monkey. This monkey swims and dives very well. It also will wade bipedaly, mother holding her youngster on her hip. in deeper water, the baby climbs on swimming mom's back. This is an obvious adaptation to a wet environment. It's been done, and the example is here. No one has filmed this wondrous creature under the water that I know of.Odd indeed, and if you saw it away from the water, you may never know it's secret. It has long legs, that are very limber, being able to swing in line with the spine so it can easily and efficiently propel the monkey forward in the water and facilitate wading. It's fir is dense, and runs downward. The hair on our back (peach fuzz to you non neanderthals and women) runs downward too. The Proboscis is a monkey. We are brachiating apes. Notch one huge advantage. We can hang from branches.You all say, we evolved with our feet on the ground. What is so sacramental about that? The Proboscis stays in the trees eating leaves and seeds. It will dive into the water to escape danger, and for travel. Sometimes they will dive for shoots. They will wade when the going is shallow enough. Oh yes, there are crocodiles there, the largest and meanest.by suggesting a crocodile can be more easily neutralized than leopards, lions, and hyenas, is simply because it is only one type of carnivore to keep an eye on, and learn it's habits. By hanging in trees over water, the whereabouts of crocs would be known. I really don't think they would live near them anyway. The hominid can find food year around in a wet environment.Why could we not have evolved in a similar environment? We could climb for fruit, or collect shellfish and shoots. Eventually the chimp's gnarly butt would be replaced by flowing fenders. The matting parasite hiding fur would be lost. Our legs would lengthen and swivel back, because wading is a back ache otherwise. These are adjustments that would make living in a wet environment easy. Freeing the hands, and the discovery of tools will spread the hominid line across Africa and eventually beyond.All will still be expert swimmers, and divers. That can come in handy. Like competing for gold medals. Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

RAZD,It is a monkey. It is not an ape. Although not naked, it has very specialized fur that was developed who knows how many millennia before. Humans took a different, very valid tact to an aqueous culture. Please don't ignore the similarities.I have mentioned easy parasite removal as being a naked skin advantage. From research I gather a science paper was submitted with just that theory, and it made quite the splash. The criticism followed that that might be one reason of many. I argue here, well of course. There are several other advantages.In all the readings I have done concerning our beginnings, the aquatic hypothesis is never left out of consideration. That is partly because the finest earliest tools and art are found on the coast. One anthropologist admitted he and his colleagues are praying hard evidence does turn up that substantiates our aquatic affinities. Why, because circumstantial evidence is pointing strongly that way.The evidence for 50k migrations out to Australia and beyond happened as soon as the, "Great human enlightening," happened. Oddly, that momentous migration left almost no evidence. These people had to cross 45 miles of open ocean to get to where they went. That is simply awesome.They were obviously extremely adept in using the coast to their advantage. They would find their usual food stuffs in every ocean, and fruit in the nearby trees.They were naked, swift butted, expert swimmers, and water explorers. They probably used what was handy in the various locals, such as bamboo for rafts and hunting/fishing implements. Anything they did use would have been eroded away.We swim and dive gracefully and with endurance. When did our bipedal ancestors NOT take advantage of that born talent.

"""""And from what we can see from the evidence, it's not plausible. There is no evidence of aquatic apes either in the present time or in the fossil record, and there are no clear cut morphological or physiological characteristics (other that a hodge-podge of characteristics that only AAH supporters think indicates an aquatic origin) of humans that indicate there has ever been an aquatic past."""""morphological characteristics of humans that indicate there has been an aquatic state:Naked skin - good for parasite removal, ease of water passage, and quick drying.Subcutaneous fat - good for smoothing contours and insulation against cold.Breasts and buttocks - flotation and insulation. In case of buttocks they provide a smooth transition from back to thighs. This assists water pass through.Legs in line with spine - important height advantage in wading, horizontally greatly assists in swimming. Like with terrestrial models, good for freeing hands.Long head hair - assists in letting toddlers hang on. Protects head and shoulders from sun.Physiological Characteristics:We are swimmers, just as bats are fliers. Like it or not, we are well adapted to swimming for the very same reasons I enumerate above concerning Ramidus. We have a smooth gradation from head to toe allowing good glide. Our brachiate ability allows powerful swim strokes. Our legs powerfully scissor kick and dolphin kick. We can and do dive and collect sea food.All the hominids going back to Ramidus have the same build, so why do you insist they can't wade, and swim, or would choose not to? There is safety in shore-line brambles.The Proboscis monkey lives in the same environment, has an upright stance, and has to deal with crocs. It isn't an ape, but it is a successful biped in the water. If you saw it in the forest for the first time you would never know, though you would be impressed by it's long legged walking ability.I flipped through the pages of Life magazine decades ago looking at a leopard capture and kill a terrified baboon. The last card the baboon played was to flash it's super canines in the leopard's face. The leopard did blink, if only for an instance.Now enter a chimp on a human torso. This creature is trying to walk, and sure hasn't mastered running. It's less handy lower appendages obstruct climbing. Predators would be napping all around the tree. The hominid becomes lunch every time it hits the ground.

Bluejay, I am aware of the other ideas how we became bipedal, and the Orangutan's use of bipedal movement to work it's way to another tree happens to be the best of the bunch. The problem is, the Orangutan never really became bipedal.I cannot buy into early swivel hipped hominids scaring even me, let alone a pride of lions. Chimps sure the hell would scare me in the wild.You have your model vying for the same foodstuffs as baboons, and turf. That's a war Brambo would love to see. Oh yes, we developed in a thick forest on a flood plane crisscrossed with waterways and lakes. So fewer baboons, and lots more food possibilities. If only we could wade out to snatch a tender shoot, or crab..... What do you know, we can!By hanging in the trees, I am saying they have the ability to steady themselves over a favorite diving spot.Like I pointed out, Proboscis Monkeys do the bipedal thing in croc infested waters. They aren't stupid.

Let me try to explain to all of you something.What I am interested in is what was the initial impetus for our nudity plus bipedalism. I would assume by the time of Homo Habilis, hominids would be found over a wide area, coping with all sorts of enemies and prey. Our feet, legs, and other muscles would be further developed to maximize our survival possibilities on land. That is where the foot, neck, back, and butt would gain it's springiness. We eventually evolved to be the runner. By the time of Homo Erectus, we were darn good at running, jumping, and spearing.The problem I have with us starting out on that foot is the very beginning scenario. Unlike the rest of you, I have no problem with hominids doing what might have seemed natural given the right environment. A bit of wading would avail the ambitious new hominid new protein rich food sources, not to be bothered by other apes, and land carnivores. The Proboscis monkey had done the same thing, perhaps even first to do it.Modern humans are known to have used their water prowess to survive throughout our existance. Caches of shellfish have been found in conjunction with earliest Homo Sapiens in caves by the sea. It just isn't like we can't or didn't.That would get us through our awkward stage, when straight toes, straight legged stance, pelvis turning, and spine curving can gently take place. Natural selection would favor the ones that can get the most food fastest. I think the other models just don't have any push.Certainly this new genus would attempt to take their new confidence afield. They have another five million years to get that right.

The main critiscism of the swimming ape, has been there have been no fossils lending themselves to waterworld.I, for one, am very happy with the aquatic ape designation of our beginnings. Our delightful sleek body glides through the water nicely. Our nakedness assists. Any one trying skinny dipping knows how more quickly you can glide over wearing a bathing suit.So, let's get back to the facts.Enter Homo Foriensis. Here is a little hominid, resembling in development to Homo Habilis, way over in Indonesia. That is a long way from Africa. What's more these small people had very long flat feet. These feet necessitates a high gait with a slap down foot. Don't tell me Forensis hiked to those islands on those..... um..... flippers.Get it!!!! There is your fossil evidence. We evolved from naked swimmers. That we went through further evolution that led to running feet bares no problem with us retaining other features. Nakedness is preferred sexually. The smooth gluteus maximus has become bulbous..... also sexy. We still waste salt when we sweat. And when we want to, we can dawn our own flippers and elegantly dive for abalone.

The wrist of Florensis is chimp like, so are the feet. Are you telling me first they inherited our arched feet, only to regress to elongated chimp feet? Why would that be an advantage, other than a ready food supply under water? If it worked off Florensis Island, it would work just as well along any coast, or tidal delta in Africa.It is known Homo Habilis in Africa used simplie shaped hand tools. Florensis showed how they were used. Obviously a small brain is not a handicap to even the earliest Homo.