Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 91 of 202 (484770)
10-01-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by arrogantape
09-30-2008 11:28 PM


Re: flood plain is plainly not flooded plain
Hi, Ape.
On the subject of "floodplains":
RAZD, message #86, writes:
Curiously a flood plain is not always flooded, nor is seasonal flooding necessary to be classified as flood plain. The specification for heavily forested could easily be more descriptive of very occasionally flooded plains.
Living in these kind if areas could just mean that the ground is easier to dig for finding tubers and that there are nut and fruit bearing trees and bushes growing in the fertile soil with a relatively high water table.
arrogantape writes:
This was waterworld much of the year, if not always. Ramidus had to forage during the wet period.
You and RAZD have made counter-assertions. In this, RAZD has the advantage, because your argument relies on the term “floodplain,” and RAZD has shown that the term doesn’t always mean what you think it means. Now, one of you should present some evidence about the "floodplain" of eastern Africa ~5 Mya, because only case-specific evidence is going to resolve this issue.
-----
arrogantape, message #78, writes:
I have stated, I cannot fathom how Lucy managed to survive... A slight naked upright gracile ape trotting about is lunch.
arrogantape writes:
[In the water,] the big carnivores are not a threat, accept crocs, and they can be neutralized.
There’s an obvious disjunct here: Lucy is helpless on the plains, but she can neutralize crocodiles in the water? I don’t buy that at all.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 11:28 PM arrogantape has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 12:03 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 202 (484777)
10-01-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by arrogantape
10-01-2008 12:01 PM


I resent you lumping me in with creationists.
I'm merely pointing out that you are disputing a widespread consensus in a professional community for no other reason, it seems, that you "can't fathom" how the consensus can be accurate.
-
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.
No offense, but I have to point out that I don't find you very credible at all. So I can't tell the difference between your use of hyperbole (and what you actually might mean) and your actual misunderstanding of the topic at hand. If you have a point to make here, I suggest that you elaborate on it a little more accurately,
-
The associated biotic evidence for Ramidus and Aferensis are almost exclusively aquatic and semi aquatic.
Except that we know these weren't aquatic species because trained scientists can tell the difference between an aquatic and a terrestrial species.
-
Check out this scientific paper:
Do you realize that the paper doesn't support the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis? The AAH postulates that there was a stage where our ancestors were primarily aquatic, that is, they spent considerable time living and swimming in the water, to the point where babies would be adapted to swimming in the water.
The paper suggests that bipedalism may have been an adaptation for wading into the water in order to find food. They actually present some evidence for this, primarily that the other (and definitely non-aquatic apes) will wade into water if they think they can get food.
And, I will state this again, that it is well-established that Australopithecus afarensis was not aquatic; however, according to the hypothesis of the paper to which you linked, the wading allowed access to more nutritious foods which allowed the development of larger brains.
This, too, is different from the AAH hypothesis in that the large brain was not an adaptation to the environment, but rather was allowed as a possibility by the new food sources available.
And there is nothing in the paper that suggests that any of the other allegedly unique human traits were due to a primarily aquatic lifestyle, nor that A. afarensis was an aquatic species.
Now, I can't comment on how good the science in the paper actually is, but I will say that they actually make a plausible hypothesis, and give some good reasons for accepting it as a possibility. But it is a far cry from supporting the much more over-reaching AAH.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by arrogantape, posted 10-01-2008 12:01 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by arrogantape, posted 10-02-2008 9:38 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 202 (484828)
10-02-2008 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Blue Jay
10-01-2008 3:00 PM


Re: flood plain is plainly not flooded plain
Hey Bluejay.
Now, one of you should present some evidence about the "floodplain" of eastern Africa ~5 Mya, because only case-specific evidence is going to resolve this issue.
All I can find is reference to the ethiopian uplift and drying out of the climate ~4Mya.
On a side note, my feet are not adapted to swimming at all. They don't fold back enough to act as flippers, and they are skinny (like those old footprints) and I can get more propulsion from one hand than I can get from both feet kicking vigorously (a way to get exhausted).
I'll look more tomorrow.

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 91 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 3:00 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by arrogantape, posted 10-02-2008 8:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 94 of 202 (484896)
10-02-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
10-02-2008 12:03 AM


Re: flood plain is plainly not flooded plain
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2008 12:03 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 95 of 202 (484899)
10-02-2008 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Chiroptera
10-01-2008 4:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2008 4:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 10-03-2008 8:37 AM arrogantape has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 202 (484930)
10-03-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by arrogantape
10-02-2008 9:38 PM


We have even been arguing savannah vs aquatic adaptations.
Well, that may be what you have been arguing. Me, I've just been arguing that there is no good evidence to suggest that there was a phase in human evolutionary history where our ancestors were aquatic. Just selecting a hodge-podge of different characteristics and then saying, "Gee, these make sense to me if humans had an aquatic ancestor!" is not evidence.
Now if there were more evidence, say in the fossil record, or more substantial morphological features in extant and extinct hominids that are definitely known to be correlated with an aquatic lifestyle, then that would be different. But we don't have this kind of evidence. Just a bunch of people, few with any anthropological or paleontological training, pointing out a few unrelated features and saying, "gee, this is interesting."
You may want to look up argument from personal incredulity.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by arrogantape, posted 10-02-2008 9:38 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 11:52 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 97 of 202 (484936)
10-03-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Chiroptera
10-03-2008 8:37 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Chiroptera, posted 10-03-2008 8:37 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 10-03-2008 1:38 PM arrogantape has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 202 (484940)
10-03-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 11:52 AM


Much of what you say is true. It's a bit dodgy to try to determine exactly what evironmental pressures cause any lineage to go along a particular path. One can make some inferences when one knows some details about the environment in which the species lived, but unless it can be tested it'll just be conjecture.
So, it may not be known precisely why humans became mostly hairless. But there is one thing that can be said by looking at the fossil record, is that it probably didn't involve an aquatic phase. All the fossil species found in our ancestry were pretty definitely terrestrial -- walking on ground -- and not a species that lived primarily swimming in the water.
And, as you point out, the time of the split between our line and the chimpanzees comprise but a short period of time between known species -- probably not enough time for our ancestors to take to the water, make these wacky adaptations to it, and then come back out on land.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 11:52 AM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 5:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 99 of 202 (484956)
10-03-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Chiroptera
10-03-2008 1:38 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Chiroptera, posted 10-03-2008 1:38 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by bluescat48, posted 10-03-2008 5:28 PM arrogantape has replied
 Message 101 by Chiroptera, posted 10-03-2008 5:32 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 100 of 202 (484958)
10-03-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 5:03 PM


If Macaques are smart enough to use aqueous food who can say Ramidus and Afarensis weren't?
Even if Ramidus & Afarensis did use aqueous food it still wouldn't make them aquatic, just land creatures who "fished" for food.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 5:03 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 5:53 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 202 (484959)
10-03-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 5:03 PM


If Macaques are smart enough to use aqueous food who can say Ramidus and Afarensis weren't?
I don't think that you understand the points that you think you are trying to make. We are not discussing whether or not early hominids used "aqueous" foods. We are discussing whether any were an aqueous species.
-
Early hominids would.... Their shoulder socket would.... They would....
...their nudity would.... That came later. Their bipedalism would....
You notice all the "woulds"? In English we call this the hypothetical mood, and so far we still only have a hypothesis with no physical evidence.
-
We know they had the arms, legs, and build that could fascilitate swimming.
You keep losing sight of the question. The question isn't whether they could have swam, the question is whether they did swim, and, in fact, whether they spent a large enough amount of their time swimming for evolutionary pressures to produce unique morphological and physiological characteristics.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 5:03 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 102 of 202 (484964)
10-03-2008 5:46 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2008 8:37 PM arrogantape has not replied
 Message 107 by Chiroptera, posted 10-04-2008 3:02 PM arrogantape has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 103 of 202 (484965)
10-03-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by bluescat48
10-03-2008 5:28 PM


Hi Bluescat48
Thanks for joining the conversation.
I am not saying we were once a mayfly larvae, waiting to to emerge and fly
What 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by bluescat48, posted 10-03-2008 5:28 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 202 (484983)
10-03-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 5:46 PM


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.
Curiously, a test of manhood for the Massai was to go out and kill a lion single handed, with just a shield and a spear. Strangely, Chimpanzees have been filmed defending their group from a lion, using sticks.
Again, we easily swim and dive.
And you still have not explained why crocodiles are not a problem when lions are.
Flood plains are good habitat for finding edible plant materials, roots, tubers, fruits, nuts, because the ground is fertile. A wooded floodplain also provides a diverse habitat for small fauna that can be killed with sticks (as chimpanzees have done).
I don't see any evidence of shell middens etc that would indicate a use of the marine environment, as we see later with some early Cro-Magnon (sapiens) evidence.
I would not be surprised to see early hominids taking advantage of the opportunities of marine life to supplement their diet, but I do not see it being a formative behavior.
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 102 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 5:46 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 105 of 202 (484984)
10-03-2008 8:55 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2008 1:31 PM arrogantape has replied
 Message 109 by Blue Jay, posted 10-04-2008 3:43 PM arrogantape has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024