Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 4:49 PM
369 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,135 Year: 16,741/21,208 Month: 2,630/3,593 Week: 97/646 Day: 37/60 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
artturi
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 138 (217548)
06-17-2005 2:52 AM


details
So you think we developed in the grasslands?

Is this false then?:
http://www.passionateape.com/id4.htm
Chapter 2. Aquatic Transition
• Between twelve and six million years ago, the Pliocene drought pushed our lineage into the sea for survival.

Can anyone prove there was no Pliocene drought? any links?


  
artturi
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 138 (218317)
06-21-2005 4:57 AM


Finally serenity
At least I have found a clear understanding of Aquatic Ape theory and it's place in origins of human evolution.

I read a section of a book called 'ihmisen synty' - origin of human, a book that know's nothing of Aquatic ape theory.

That book explained that 13-6 years ago around ethiopia was struct by serious floods that came and went, but mostly came.

Whole ecosystem was strained and many new species were born. One pre-primate ape divided into several sub species, our homo-line was one line.

Our ancestors adapted to wet and changing environment, and learned to eat animals harvested from water. When environment dried, our ancestors continued to follow rivers and found many other places that they adapted to - finally homo sapiens had adapted to all kinds of environments.

Aquatic ape theory explained what happened 5 - 10 million years ago, and those who oppose the theory just complains that things that happened afterwards do not confirm the theory - without understanding that the theory only explains what during that the Pliocene drought.
They also think theory says our forefather during that drought was fully aquatic - because of the word 'aquatic' confuses them. Theory is not about that.

AAT enthuastics should remember that after that period our race adapted to dry and all kinds of environments. We are generalists. And all of our features are not explained away with AA theory, but it explains why we are so different from other primates.


  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3511
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 78 of 138 (518264)
08-04-2009 7:29 PM


Per PZ Myers - The definitive "Aquatic Ape" site
Just links for reference - http://www.aquaticape.org/

Found via Pharyngula.

Moose


    
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 79 of 138 (529318)
10-08-2009 8:53 PM


the sloth is vegetarian. It swims in a swampy area to reach another yummy tree. We are omnivores. We are apes and have wonderfully extendable arms great for grasping clams and crabs.

The savannah theory is no longer held viable by many physical anthropologists because of the flora that was present at the beginning of our line. It was a wet forest.

H floresiensis has been found thousands of miles from Africa. This creature had long wide flat feet. It couldn't walk or run well, but could most likely swim like a champ. Homo habilis is it's closest relative. It lived in wet environments, and was a tool maker. Handy Man is it;s familiar name.

We are omnivores. H floresiensis's trash showed a varied diet including water born food.

Walking around with our arms free is an advantage. Swimming supine we can dive and glide opening food sources hidden from other animals. H habilis could crack a clam. His huge cousin, Boisei, could crack skulls. it lived in the savannah.

Along with our smooth and fine haired bodies, our kicking feet, we are natural swimmers.That is where I put my money. We got a brain boost through a steady rich diet. Chimps went for the forest, while we struck for the wetlands.


Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-08-2010 11:14 AM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 80 of 138 (532842)
10-26-2009 9:17 PM


The new Scientific American issue has a story of h Floresiensis. The idea it is closely related to Homo Habilis has taken root. The similarities are significant, including the making of sophisticated tools.

It seems non plausible to me that scientists staring at the Hobbit's feet don't entertain at least a fleeting thought the feet are great for water propulsion. Michael phelps had large feet, short legs, and a long powerful torso. The Hobbit is built the same, but with a downward curve of the clavicle, giving the hobbit a streamlined neck to shoulder shape.

Interestingly, the artist who created the model for the Hobbit pictured in Scientific American made her buck naked.

There needs to be an intensive search of shoreline caves in Africa, the middle east, all the way to Indonesia.


    
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 138 (553555)
04-03-2010 9:58 PM


aquatic beginnings gaining in acceptance
Just yesterday National Geographic Presents featured the latest findings on our chimpanzee brethren. There was some cool tool using footage, but I will cut to the chase.

It became rather obvious the only thing that differentiated between us and the ape line is our upright stance. After raising the various weak theories why we learned to walk on two legs, they settled on an aquatic adaptation as the most likely occurrence.

When this subject started here, there were only a couple sites dedicated to an aquatic ape. Now, there are scads of sites, some extremely learned.


Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2010 12:05 AM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 82 of 138 (553573)
04-04-2010 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by arrogantape
04-03-2010 9:58 PM


Confirmation Bias again
Once more arrogantape has demonstrated his propensity for confirmation bias for his pet theory.

After raising the various weak theories why we learned to walk on two legs, they settled on an aquatic adaptation as the most likely occurrence.

And yet there are numerous mammals that have made an aquatic adaptation, and, curiously, not one of them uses an upright walking posture.

Then we have the source of this new information"

Just yesterday National Geographic Presents featured the latest findings on our chimpanzee brethren. There was some cool tool using footage, but I will cut to the chase.

While I have not (yet) found any video that matches this inadequate description (what's the name of the episode eh?) I did find this:

National Geographic Presents - The Mystery Skulls of Palau (Part 1 of 5 the rest are linked at the end of each part) .

If you can get past the embarrassing over-hype and pseudo dramatics to the actual information, there are few surprises (to me). Rather this shows how this particular program is journalistic sensationalism rather than a real source of scientific information or opinion.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by arrogantape, posted 04-03-2010 9:58 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 83 of 138 (553750)
04-04-2010 10:42 PM


I never said the NG film was a scientific production. The fact they spent time and money on a video segment of an early hominid scooping up what looks like a bivalve, proves there is a growing interest in this most convincing impetus for early upright walking, swimming naked adaptations.

Ardi had only a very short time in which to have had evolved into an upright stance. That is no problem, as punctuated evolution theory is built around short evolutionary incidents caused by locally strong environmental pressures.

The Chimp and the Gorilla have proven to be quite successful genotypes at home in a drier forested environment. How do you think we, just a few percentages of genotype away from being a chimp, evolved so radically different? Except for size, the gorilla and chimp look quite alike. Why would evolve an upright stance useless in the forest? Try to race a chimp up a tree.

Remember, you can't use the brave hunter venturing into the savannah model. Upright Ardi was found to be living in a watery forest.

Our obvious water friendly adaptions presently allow us to harvest meals from the water. That should give us a clue. Our sweat not only cools us, it exudes salt. In a salty, sunny environment that is a plus for both categories. Water suspends our weight, allowing skeletal adaptations time to develop in relative safety. Those that were quicker swimmers could support more progeny. There is that reward niche punctuated evolution describes.

I would think the Flores, "Hobbit," would give the anti-aquatic folks pause. Here was a recent hominid who looks very much like homo Habilis with abnormally big feet living thousands of miles from Africa. The feet were not only long and wide, they were without an arch. What would make wonderful diving fins, make also poor feet for walking or running.

I doubt we are going to find a definitive african fossil that proves one way or the other, except one. That is why the fossils from Flores is really important. The food leftovers not only consisted of baby miniature elephants, there were fish and shellfish shells and bones present. Flores had no large carnivore. That is why we have these fossils high above the water. We may have perhaps the only early hominid home site in existence. Water foragers hugged the shores, away from marauding predators. Shoreline sites are quickly lost to the elements.


Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 04-05-2010 12:08 AM arrogantape has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 84 of 138 (553766)
04-05-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by arrogantape
04-04-2010 10:42 PM


Hi, Arrogant Ape.

arrogantape writes:

Remember, you can't use the brave hunter venturing into the savannah model. Upright Ardi was found to be living in a watery forest.

Brave hunters can't walk in forests?

Besides, there’s evidence of grasslands mixed with the forests in Ardi's habitat, too, so there's still plenty of places for Ardi to go walking around.

-----

arrogantape writes:

Try to race a chimp up a tree.

Deer survive very well in forests without being able to climb trees.

-----

arrogantape writes:

Our sweat not only cools us, it exudes salt. In a salty, sunny environment that is a plus for both categories.

Why would you think the Middle Awash, Ethiopia was a salty environment? And, if it was a forest, “sunny” is probably also dubious. Furthermore, arguing that perspiration is consistent with an aquatic animal is a sure sign of confirmation bias.

I think I’ve been largely convinced by RAZD’s sexual selection argument for human “nakedness.” Uprightness is still up in the air, but I can think of a fair number of hypotheses that explain it equally as well as the aquatic ape hypothesis.

Look, I agree that the aquatic ape hypothesis is somewhat consistent with the evidence, and I’m not philosophically opposed to it, but you’re really trying so hard to make every little, insignificant thing you see into evidence for it that I can’t really consider you credible. Like RAZD said, you’re experiencing confirmation bias.

But, keep on posting new information: it gives me the chance to keep up on the topic of human evolution. I would be very interested to learn of any real evidence for an aquatic phase in human evolution, but I don’t think you’ve really presented anything really substantive.

And, feel free to join in other discussions, too: you’re always welcome.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by arrogantape, posted 04-04-2010 10:42 PM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 85 of 138 (553783)
04-05-2010 2:05 AM


Hi Bluejay,

I really like your open minded approach. As a good nature aside, I wouldn't have any luck out racing a deer through the brush anymore than I could out climb a chimp.

We are a slow generalist. We can do a little of everything. Our brains allow us to accomplish a lot. We are also responsible for the latest species epochal die off. That's for another topic.

If you ask me, Floresiensis is the smoking gun for how we evolved. She was small in stature, and rather obviously specialized for swimming fast. No other hominid camp has been found. on any shore leading to Flores. That is because they worked the shores, the ever changing shores, where no evidence is left behind. We have a golden trove at the caves of Flores.

I will never believe a bare bod could be gene pooled without some other impetus other than through sexual preference. Chimps and Gorillas, and all the monkeys have never found nudity becoming at all. The whale and porpoise had terrestrial beginnings. Their nudity was arrived through pressures of the environment. Sexual preference may have had a hand.

Fast swimmers, on the other hand, would be attractive traits. Did you know that Manatees have breasts, and they suckle there babes in an upright position? There is a tiny monkey who lives in the Congo. It keeps to the trees near water. They use jumping in the water as an escape route. This monkey also has a specially large brain. They feed on mollusks, crabs, bird eggs, and insects. They have a ready supply of plenty of protein. The Proboscis monkey wades in the water upright. Their legs are long in proportion. Both of these monkeys have a pronounced nose. This all sounds familiar to me.


Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by anglagard, posted 04-05-2010 3:19 AM arrogantape has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Blue Jay, posted 04-05-2010 5:58 PM arrogantape has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-08-2010 11:38 AM arrogantape has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 86 of 138 (553794)
04-05-2010 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by arrogantape
04-05-2010 2:05 AM


Beyond Obvious
arrogantape writes:

Did you know that Manatees have breasts

Did you know that all placental mammals have some way to transfer milk to feed their young?

Last time I looked it was part of the definition of placental mammal.

IMO if you want to argue your case, you should directly address the many objections to the Aquatic Ape hypothesis as Moose pointed out at http://www.aquaticape.org/.

On a personal note, I found this hypothesis interesting since first reading about it in The Naked Ape in the late 60s. However, as Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 04-05-2010 2:05 AM arrogantape has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2010 8:46 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 87 of 138 (553915)
04-05-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by arrogantape
04-05-2010 2:05 AM


Hi, Arrogantape.

arrogantape writes:

I will never believe a bare bod could be gene pooled without some other impetus other than through sexual preference.

I argued the same thing, long and hard, in why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?, and I still have a difficult time swallowing the sexual selection thing fully myself. But the evidence for it is good, and the evidence for everything else is less good.

You would do well to not set yourself philosophically against an idea when the evidence is still somewhat up in the air.

-----

arrogantape writes:

Chimps and Gorillas, and all the monkeys have never found nudity becoming at all.

I think you'll find that arguments by analogy can only go so far. For example, chimps, humans, gorillas, lemurs and spider monkeys don't find blue butts becoming at all, and yet...

That's a male mandrill, the world's largest monkey.

There is so much diversity in animals, even among mammals, that you're not going to be able to support a grand hypothesis like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis just by appealing to similarities with other animals and telling a fun story.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 04-05-2010 2:05 AM arrogantape has not yet responded

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 88 of 138 (553925)
04-05-2010 7:31 PM


I have not visited the AAH site. Prompted by above, I did just go to a site serving to debunk the AAH. Funny thing, I found the writer to be laughable at times. For instance, he stated, "If our ancestors learned to swim so well, why do so many of us modern humans drown each year?" That statement, ridiculous as it is, strikes me to be the equivalent of bible thumper's often repeated declaration, "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys alive today?"

I cannot see why people find it so hard to consider the theory of swimming hominids when other primates are doing the same. Below there is a short description of three monkeys using water to their advantage.

The Allen's Swamp monkey inhabits swampy, water-rich areas. They are very good swimmers and can dive well. When threatened, they can quickly dive into the waters to AVOID DANGER. The slight webbing of the fingers and toes point to its partially aquatic way of life.

Talapoin Monkeys are good swimmers and commonly sleep on branches overhanging rivers so that they can dive to ESCAPE FROM PREDATORS. Talapoin Monkeys are omnivores, their diet consisting mainly of fruits, seeds, aquatic plants, insects, shellfish, bird eggs and small vertebrates.

The Proboscis Monkey can most often be found in Borneo’s mangrove forests, swamps, and even the lowland riparian forests. The primates are known to move easily between dry land and shallow water and they even swim in deep water. What makes these primates unusual is that they move about from island to island, and in doing so they are often seen WALKING UPRIGHT in a single file.

There we have two examples of my premise we may have well learned to walk upright in the relative safety of the water. As at least two of the above monkeys do find food in the water, we could have learned to glean food from the water, bolstering our protein supplies enabling brain expansion. As an ape, the hominid had some advantage over the monkeys. They were taller, and their free swinging arms lent them an advantage.

The Talapoin is a peculiar monkey. They eat a good deal more protein than other monkeys, and have a much easier finding protein rich foods than do land monkeys. The Talapoin has a big brain, but why? A land monkey has to think about it's place in society, where to get the food, how to get there, and what to do with the food when they find it. The Talapoin has to do all that plus know how to handle river currents and tides, find and know the edibles in the water, learn about new predators and plenty more. They needed a bigger brain than land based monkeys. They do.

Even more striking is how the Proboscis Monkey walks on their hind legs to get from island to island. The females cradle their young on those walks just like a modern woman would do today.

This from another site:

"Proboscis Monkeys are semi-aquatic. They are equally at home wading through the swamps or climbing in the trees. They swim well, and when they leave the water they often walk off through the forest in single file, with the mothers carrying infants in their arms. (It has been suggested that humans might also have once had similar habits.)"

Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by anglagard, posted 04-07-2010 8:13 PM arrogantape has responded

    
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 2084 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 89 of 138 (553927)
04-05-2010 7:44 PM


Blue Jay,

The Mandrill is a marvelously appointed primate. I love him. Our butts grew out of the enlargement of our gluteus medius and maximus muscles used in running and walking........ And, less we forget, swimming.

I don't doubt with the advent of the enlarged muscles hominids learned to value the new rear end, breeding for it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 04-06-2010 4:31 PM arrogantape has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 90 of 138 (553950)
04-05-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by anglagard
04-05-2010 3:19 AM


Re: Beyond Obvious
Hi anglagard, welcome back to the lan of the living ....

Did you know that all placental mammals have some way to transfer milk to feed their young?
Last time I looked it was part of the definition of placental mammal.

Aside from the confirmation bias issue, I believe arrogantape has fallen victim to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

A good example of this is the "big feet" issue. If you get through the NG videos about "The Mystery Skulls of Palau" (see Message 82), you will note that there is a seemingly anomalous feature in the skulls: large teeth. The conclusion is that the teeth are large, because they have retained their ancestral size, while the rest of the body\skull/s shrank in response to the ecological opportunities (minimal, in this case), and the teeth did not have time to "catch up" with the rest of the body\skull shrinkage. The feet of H.floresiensis could be similarly delayed in reduction and also extinct before fully adapted to the island ecology.

Another is the issue of upright walking making swimming easier, and whether this evolved from swimming, or evolved before swimming was possible (ecology not suitably inundated) is not considered, nor is there any evidence that early hominids were swimmers. Shellfish can be obtained by digging them out of the banks at low tide or by wading out into shallow water and digging for them. Curiously, this is how many people collect shellfish today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/10/091008113341.htm

quote:
“This species was not a savanna species like Darwin proposed,” said University of Illinois anthropology professor Stanley Ambrose, a co-author of two of 11 studies published this week in Science on the hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus. This creature, believed to be an early ancestor of the human lineage, lived in Ethiopia some 4.4 million years ago.

Ambrose analyzed stable carbon isotope ratios in the soil in which the bones of 36 Ardipithecus individuals were found. He also analyzed the teeth of five Ardipithecus individuals and 172 teeth of two-dozen mammal species found in the same ancient soil layer.

The carbon isotope ratios of the soils indicated that in the time of Ardipithecus the landscape varied from woodland in the western part of the study zone to wooded grassland in the east. None of the Ardipithecus specimens were found in the grassy eastern part of the arc.


Curiously, he doesn't mention wetlands.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by anglagard, posted 04-05-2010 3:19 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017