Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 202 (485030)
10-04-2008 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 8:55 PM


Thanks arrogantape,
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. ...
Curious then, that it is not hairless.
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 105 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 8:55 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by arrogantape, posted 10-04-2008 3:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 202 (485041)
10-04-2008 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 5:46 PM


I know all this talk is hypothetical. The question is whether the aquatic model is plausible.
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.
So, based on actual evidence, the hypothesis doesn't seem all that plausible.

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 102 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 5:46 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by arrogantape, posted 10-04-2008 10:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 108 of 202 (485043)
10-04-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
10-04-2008 1:31 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2008 1:31 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 109 of 202 (485045)
10-04-2008 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by arrogantape
10-03-2008 8:55 PM


Hi, Ape.
arrogantape, message #94 writes:
Anti aquatic story folks do not have a model of their own.
Yes, they do. They call it the "terrestrial ape hypothesis." Basically, it states that the hip and pelvic structure are adapted for walking on the ground.
A specific flavor of this model (with a couple variations) has been presented in this very thread: free hands while walking (for carrying food or young or for brandishing sticks or scaring predators).
There is also the tree-walking hypothesis: bipedal, upright locomotion actually evolved for walking along tree branches (this is obseved in orangutans), and was thus a "preadaptation" for terrestrial locomotion.
arrogantape writes:
...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 thought hanging in trees was ruled out in the bipedal creatures by both the terrestrial and aquatic ape hypotheses.
arrogantape writes:
I really don't think they would live near [crocodiles] anyway.
I don't think this is a viable idea: if you're living near the water, you're living near crocodiles. The crocodiles will generally go wherever you go if they want to eat you.
-----
I think you've misunderstood some of what the aquatic ape hypothesis says. It doesn't say anything about swimming or aquatic locomotion, just that upright walking was originally used for wading. Like RAZD, I won't say that our ancestors didn't wade, but I will say that it was not the underlying mechanism of hominid evolution: we are not adapted to a true aquatic lifestyle. Swimming adaptations are not posited by the aquatic ape hypothesis, and are not upheld by the evidence, anyway.
Remember the foot argument I made in Message 90?:
arrogantape writes:
  • The foot is elongated between the ball and the heel, allowing greater leverage in a running step. This is a trait common to felines, canines and theropods, but not seen in beavers, whales, platypuses, otters or seals.
  • The toes are short, so they don’t break or make the step awkward (again, like the felines, canines and theropods, but not like aquatic mammals, which usually have long toes for walking in soft mud or for supporting a webbed foot).
This is clear evidence of a cursorial history, and is very difficult to rationalize with a wading or swimming history, even though I have found proof here that chimpanzees wade.
arrogantape, message #103, writes:
I bet tool making started with the crushing of clams with rocks.
I bet not.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by arrogantape, posted 10-03-2008 8:55 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arrogantape, posted 10-04-2008 11:11 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 110 of 202 (485082)
10-04-2008 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Chiroptera
10-04-2008 3:02 PM


"""""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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Chiroptera, posted 10-04-2008 3:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 111 of 202 (485083)
10-04-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Blue Jay
10-04-2008 3:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Blue Jay, posted 10-04-2008 3:43 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 112 of 202 (485085)
10-05-2008 1:00 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by arrogantape, posted 05-14-2009 9:38 PM arrogantape has not replied

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


Message 113 of 202 (508575)
05-14-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by arrogantape
10-05-2008 1:00 AM


I'm Baaaaaack
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by arrogantape, posted 10-05-2008 1:00 AM arrogantape has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by bluescat48, posted 05-14-2009 11:34 PM arrogantape has replied
 Message 117 by onifre, posted 05-15-2009 4:51 PM arrogantape has not replied
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 5:05 PM arrogantape has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 114 of 202 (508602)
05-14-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by arrogantape
05-14-2009 9:38 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
arrogantape writes:
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.
How do you know that they didn't evolve the foot shape after getting to Indonesia. Off Topic anyway.

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
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by arrogantape, posted 05-14-2009 9:38 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 11:03 AM bluescat48 has not replied

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


Message 115 of 202 (508649)
05-15-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by bluescat48
05-14-2009 11:34 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by bluescat48, posted 05-14-2009 11:34 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Blue Jay, posted 05-15-2009 4:20 PM arrogantape has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 116 of 202 (508687)
05-15-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by arrogantape
05-15-2009 11:03 AM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Hi, Ape.
Welcome back. It’s good to see you(r words) again.
I have not spent much time thinking about the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis since you last left us, but your return has prompted me to think about it a little bit more. I am not so antagonistic to it as I was before (though I still reject it at the current time).
First off, even though the flat foot is off-topic for this thread, I wanted to mention it peripherally. Only Homo floresiensis has flat feet among the genus Homo: can this really be seen as anything more than evidence that the hobbit was aquatic? How does it suggest that our ancestors were aquatic, when the adaptation appears after the emergence of our species?
-----
But, to get back on the topic of nakedness, I don't understand why nakedness points to an aquatic origin. The only naked aquatic mammals are cetaceans: all other aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals have fur.
It seems that, in every case, mammals adapting to an aquatic lifestyle developed webbed toes, flippers, blubber, and/or closable nostrils before they lost their fur.
For example, consider the following: beavers and muskrats, otters, seals, the water opossum and even the platypus. All of these are semi-aquatic or aquatic mammals, yet all of them still have their fur. Is there a reason for hypothesizing that aquatic apes are an exception to this trend?
It seems that, if hairlessness in apes is to be explained as an aquatic adaptation, the lack of flippers, blubber, and closeable nostrils would all be found wanting an explanation. Thus, wouldn’t it be more parsimonious to explain the lack of fur as a way to shed heat on the savannah?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 11:03 AM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 117 of 202 (508692)
05-15-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by arrogantape
05-14-2009 9:38 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
I, for one, am very happy with the aquatic ape designation of our beginnings. Our delightful sleek body glides through the water nicely.
We've perfected swimming due to training and conditioning, and only those who take the time to learn it and practice it. But for the most part we do not "glide" over water. Without proper training and knowledge of how to swim we simply try not to die in the water.
Have you ever known anyone who didn't know how to swim? There seems to be no built in knowledge of how to swin, yet we seem to climb things without any proper training - like what's applied to swimming. We seem to have evolved from climbers, not swimmers since we retain no instinctual swimming abilities, other than, like I said, to not die in the water.
Our nakedness assists.
Only for speed, and that's only if you're trying to shave off seconds from your time [insert Michael Phelps smoking weed joke here].
Clothing would obviously hinder swimming, but not fur, IMO.
Any one trying skinny dipping knows how more quickly you can glide over wearing a bathing suit.
Again, this would only make a good example if you're point was that we shed the fur for speed...perhaps to evade predators. Dogs can swim, they have fur, why would fur affect the basic funtion of staying afloat and propelling ones body for distances?
Nakedness is preferred sexually.
Then you have not been privy to the endless fetishes that do not involve being naked, and still produces a sexual interest in those who favor them. Weird but true.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by arrogantape, posted 05-14-2009 9:38 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 118 of 202 (508693)
05-15-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by arrogantape
05-14-2009 9:38 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Enter Homo Foriensis. Here is a little hominid, resembling in development to Homo Habilis, way over in Indonesia.
We also find flint spearheads on land and the bones of what seem to be butchered miniature elephants. This would argue for a pack hunter.
This lends itself to the next clue. Evaporative cooling. This process is greatly enhanced by the removal of fur. It allows humans to hunt mammalian prey during the hottest hours of the day. During these hours these mammal species are usually cooling off in the shade. In fact, humans can chase prey for hours on end until that animal collapses from heat fatigue. This allows humans to hunt prey that is faster than they are by using endurance and our adaption to the heat which is sweating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by arrogantape, posted 05-14-2009 9:38 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:27 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 119 of 202 (508694)
05-15-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Blue Jay
05-15-2009 4:20 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Blue Jay, I missed you.
We must remember, the genus Homo has been around a relatively short time. One thing we have learned from fossils is our trip from our divergence from apes some 5 million years ago is that the path seems quite complex.
Homo Habilis, if this is it, has had little time to evolve specialized hair that wards off parasites, and sheds water quickly. It's very close relative, the chimp, has wiry hair.
The wiry hair of a chimp would not do well in the water. Also, it would not ward off parasites, a water hazard. Being naked allows Homo Habilis the ability to dry almost instantly, and all parasites would be visible for removal. Naked is the way to go, if you ever skinny dipped before you would know. Put a fir coat on then swim..... Sure.
The very fact most investigators include Florensis and Habilis in our genus, gives them deserved consideration. If you look at an H Habilis skull next to H Florensis, they look very much the same. Think of it, this is our first Homo sp. Somehow this clever hominid managed the long trip to Indonesia. They say activity in their cave goes back 800,000 years. That is a long survival period. Seems H Sapiens put an end to them the same time they put an end to H Erectus.
The thought goes now that H Habilis looks more like an ancestor than H Erectus. The hominids on Florensis Island were specialized swimmers. They could not have started the trip without being specialized water babies.
We are naked, graceful, and rich brained. This is nothing like a chimp. H Habilis was smart. He could outwit carnivores. Lion, tigers and bears attack and the little hobbit dives into the water. They do not follow.
He had tool knowledge. You know what? I am really confident now this was my daddy far removed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Blue Jay, posted 05-15-2009 4:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

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


Message 120 of 202 (508695)
05-15-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Taq
05-15-2009 5:05 PM


Re: I'm Baaaaaack
Oh boy! we are having a party. The Hobbit was no pack hunter. Not with those flipper feet. No sir!
They surely had no bones about trapping their prey.
Our choice of what to take to the beach is go naked or wear chimp fur. I choose naked for the reasons I put out.
Hey, Florensis is a Homo sp. who has flat long feet. These feet are specialized water fins. They worked their way over thousands of miles to Flores, using their water knowledge and skills. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 5:05 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by arrogantape, posted 05-15-2009 5:31 PM arrogantape has not replied
 Message 122 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 5:33 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