Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 202 (484435)
09-28-2008 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 2:58 PM


Horses sweat....
This sort of undermines the idea that sweating is evidence of an aquatic phase in human evolution, doesn't it? Or are you claiming that horses had an aquatic phase, too?
-
Sweat is very salty. Lots of sweating will deposit salt on the skin.
How do horses deal with this? Or are you claiming that horses were also aquatic in the past?
-
You can go here to see a brief overview of aquatic origins for Homo:
And here is an interesting discussion of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. And here is a longer, more thorough debunking of the hypothesis. In fact, the site has an article on hairlessness and skin.

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 56 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 2:58 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 202 (484446)
09-28-2008 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 4:38 PM


You can't really be taking the horse as a defeat all premises we are of aquatic origin.
No. I'm taking the horse as an example of how sweating is not an indication of aquatic origins. Either sweating indicates aquatic origins, or it does not.

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 59 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 4:38 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 202 (484452)
09-28-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 5:23 PM


I just think taking one out of place example like the horse, and decide since it sweats and is not aquatic, then people who also sweat aren't aquatic either.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am not saying that sweating shows humans did not have an aquatic evolutionary past. I am saying that sweating does not show one way or the other whether humans have an aquatic past.
In fact, this is basically what the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis does. It takes a few unrelated out of place examples of characteristics in humans and then purports to explain them in terms of an aquatic past in our evolutionary history. It ignores the clearly terrestrial animals that share these features, and it ignores features that are associated with aquatic lifestyles that humans don't possess.
On the other hand, now that you mention it, what aquatic animals sweat?

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 63 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 5:23 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 202 (484457)
09-28-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 5:44 PM


why are we such a peculiar ape?
How does the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis answer this question?

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 65 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 5:44 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 202 (484560)
09-29-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by arrogantape
09-28-2008 7:43 PM


I find fault in both camps.
Funny. The only fault I find in either camp is that the Aquatic Ape supporters have no actual evidence to support their claims. The traditionalists do -- all fossil hominids are clearly terrestrial. There is no example of an "aquatic ape" of the type that the AAH supporters insist must exist -- either extant or in the fossil record.
-
The fossils are being found in and around water. Lucy and her gang seems to have been in the midst of water.
What? Are you claiming that Australopithecus afarensis was aquatic? Are you aware that you are now moving beyond even Elaine Morgan and Marc Verhaegen's position? The AAH postulates an as yet unknown ancestor that was aquatic, not A. afarensis. Are you claiming that anthropologists are too incompetent to be able to determine whether a fairly complete fossil animal is aquatic or terrestrial?
-
Still, I am not wavering in my favoring the aquatic origin.
Sounds religious in nature to me.

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 69 by arrogantape, posted 09-28-2008 7:43 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 202 (484651)
09-30-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by arrogantape
09-29-2008 4:44 PM


I have stated, I cannot fathom how Lucy managed to survive.
Okay, and I cannot fathom how the hodge-podge of various characteristics lead to the conclusion that human ancestors were aquatic. But people couldn't fathom the implications of quantum mechanics, either. Before that, Europeans couldn't fathom an ethical framework where Europeans weren't superior. Before that, no one could fathom how the earth could be moving through space.
What one can or cannot fathom is a pretty poor way or reaching definite conclusions. That is why it is so important to check one's ideas with actual evidence.

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 78 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 4:44 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 4:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 202 (484671)
09-30-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by arrogantape
09-30-2008 4:48 PM


I don't think there would be any interest in aquatic derived legs in line with spine and nakedness, and breath control, and highly developed sweat glands, and smooth derrier, and common sense, if the conventional explanation we slowly made all these adjustments working out survival strategies on vicious plains, when other savannah primates are doing the opposite.
What do you think of the fact that the people who have an interest in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis compose a very small group, most of whom have almost no training in physical anthropology or paleontology or archeology?

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 82 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 4:48 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 6:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 202 (484723)
10-01-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by arrogantape
09-30-2008 6:43 PM


There were the same traditionalists that slowed down our understanding of the therapod origin of birds.
Hmm. So the entire fields of biology, archeology, and paleontology are filled with "traditionalists". These "traditionalists" managed to get into control of each and every university so that no one can be trained to look at the evidence with the same clarity of vision that you have.
Furthermore, out of all these traditionalists, not one has ever had the sort of doubts that would lead them to look at the evidence carefully and see the obvious conclusions that should be there? And have not been able to make a good case to sway the opinions of others?
Have you ever considered that your opinion in this matter is very similar to that held by creationists, global warming deniers, and WTC conspiracy theorists?
I admit that I'm not familiar with physical anthropology departments as I am with other fields, but I have a hard time believing that so many different people, coming from so many different social backgrounds, working in so many different fields, using such a wide variety of different methodologies, employed by so many different and independent institutions can really be caught up in this kind of
group think" as to hold onto an erroneous conclusion despite clear evidence to the contrary for such a long time?
In your words, I can't really fathom how this could happen. And, in fact, it has been my experience that when someone suggests that this is happening without any real evidence beyond that the consensus contradicts their preferred beliefs, then that is a sign that the person making this kind of accusation is motivated more by an intense desire to maintain her beliefs than by being swayed by clear evidence.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

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 85 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 6:43 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by arrogantape, posted 10-01-2008 12:01 PM Chiroptera has 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024