Notices
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 601 to 608 of 608

Thread: Aquatic Apes Again.

  1. #601  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    ....
    I'm still waiting for actual peer reviewed papers. Where do you think paleontologists REPORT finds such as the ones you assert.

    Really? what else do you think would your statement regarding the oscillation between "flippers" and feet. ( of which there is NO paleontological data of such)
    Not long to go now. I have got the names of those interviewed in the documentary so now I'll be able to see if they have written papers on the topic.

    The documentary was called "BECOMING HUMAN - NOVA - Discovery/Science/History" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gGc4SjxOqk
    The specific section about the wildly fluctuating weather in Africa was from 40:50 - through to 50:00 mark.
    Names mentioned were:
    1. Rick Potts of the Smithsonian Institution
    2. Annett Junginger from University of Potsdam
    3. John Kingston from Emory University
    4. Mark Maslin from University College London
    5. Peter de Menocal from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

    Note: I hope you don't think I was talking about flippers as in seal flippers but using the slang term "flippers" for extra large broad feet.
    Know you, I have the feeling you'll be wanting a fossil of a hominid with actual seal type flippers next! So don't try and twist the argument out of proportion, I'm talking feet at all times.
    All I'm going to show is that the weather "swung from dry to wet wildly and repeatedly", for that is what you disputed to begin with, or have you changed your tune about that too?
    Aquatic Apes Again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #602  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    ....I don't know why you are so determined to make the feet part of the Aquatic Ape theory. First off, we would want to find a reason why prehumans even chose the water environment as their primary environment. Clearly most apes don't find it to be the best place overall to settle down.
    Well even if you say our feet are adapted to walking or running, it still needs to be walking or running to a food source, for it surely not for escaping predators. Our feet have slowed us down if anything.

    You tell me your theory then regarding the development of the human foot?
    In the Savannah theory, humans were basically foragers. The ability to move vast distances while consuming a minimum of calories to get there would be the key to survival.

    This is what we see in modern day kangaroos. They're fully bipedal, and their hop is actually very energy efficient. The tendons in their legs act as springs to conserve the energy from the previous hop to use again in the next hop.

    So humans would develop better eyesight to enable them to see food from further away. Smell would become less important, because most food sources would be too far away to detect that way. Daylight becomes the preferred time to be active.



    If humans were already fully bipedal when they chose the environment, then we have our explanation right there. They would have been the only fully bipedal species in the area, and if full bipedalism gives them an advantage at being able to stand high above the surface of the water and spot food below, then they would have no competition.
    How did they transition to being "fully bipedal"
    in that scenario then?
    Becoming fully bipedal is much more energy efficient than walking on all 4's. The goal isn't speed. Just range.

    Also a fully bipedal creature has the furthest view ahead, because they're keeping their eyes at a higher point.


    Zero competition is an incredibly strong selective trait for choosing an environment to specialize in. It also tends to make the food from that environment extremely abundant for the organism that has access to it. And an exceptionally abundant meat source would explain how humans got big brains. (Seems to be a prerequisite for getting there.)
    "Zero competition" is NOT an select-able trait.
    It's the most selectable of all, but only if you are lucky enough to find such a niche. So I guess finding it isn't something you can select. That's just luck. But choosing it once you find it is about the strongest selection there is.

    I mean that, if you find yourself in a zero competition niche, then you're facing very strong selection toward changing to adapt to that niche more and more.

    "An exceptionally abundant meat source" DOES NOT "explain how humans got big brains". You might need the big brains to capture your meat supply when you are an animal that isn't fast, doesn't have sharp long canine teeth or claws. Paleoichneum says my arguments are bordering on Lamarkian Evolution, but that claim is the worst so far.
    Selection is a two sided pincer. The selection against big brains in nature is the fact they require more nutrients than small brains require.

    You can either reduce the selection against, or increase the selection for, or both. In the water niche, I'd say that we have both. Increased intelligence makes the human better able to open up mollusk shells. Abundant supply of meat makes the increased intelligence cheap.


    So if we weren't already fully bipedal when we got there, then half of Aquatic Ape Hypothesis' explaining power is lost.
    I don't believe that was the case, so your argument reverts to opinion.
    If we already had good eyesight and a bipedal stance, then the mollusks and stuff in the shallow pools near the beach would be easy prey to us. But not easy prey to the majority of our competitors.

    On the other hand, if we arrived without those traits, we'd have less ability to hunt them.


    Here is an insight. Any genetic mutation is going to affect one single individual to begin with.
    So any change has to start with an individual finding its mutation an advantage.
    Start explaining your ideas from a starting point like that. Most anatomical changes are going to involve the switches and will require long term selection, but a single deletion to a dominant gene will be immediate.

    So you won't get a chimp with a human foot from a single mutation is that correct?
    But you could get a chimp born without strong jaw muscles. It would be like having muscular dystrophy. Do you agree with that.
    In the Savannah theory?

    In Savannah theory, all 4 appendages have a strong reason to transform into feet. However the forelimb's usefulness as a grasping mechanism is so advantageous that it probably wouldn't give in to that selection. The hind limb, on the other hand, is less useful for grasping. Nearly useless on the Savannah. So over time it would start to specialize toward being better at supporting weight.

    Each human who mutated in the direction of having less of a hand and more of a foot on their hind limb would gain just that much more walking power, to aid them in getting from one food source to the next.

    After a while, the hind limb has totally become a pure foot. Now the human starts to want to put more of the burden of walking on the specialized limb, because it is specialized. Less and less of the walking is done by the forelimb (since it is still a hand, and only partly useful as a foot.)

    So as more and more of the workload transfers to the hind limb, eventually the creature stops using its forelimbs for locomotion altogether.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #603  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    ....I don't know why you are so determined to make the feet part of the Aquatic Ape theory. First off, we would want to find a reason why prehumans even chose the water environment as their primary environment. Clearly most apes don't find it to be the best place overall to settle down.
    Well even if you say our feet are adapted to walking or running, it still needs to be walking or running to a food source, for it surely not for escaping predators. Our feet have slowed us down if anything.

    You tell me your theory then regarding the development of the human foot?
    In the Savannah theory, humans were basically foragers. The ability to move vast distances while consuming a minimum of calories to get there would be the key to survival.

    This is what we see in modern day kangaroos. They're fully bipedal, and their hop is actually very energy efficient. The tendons in their legs act as springs to conserve the energy from the previous hop to use again in the next hop.

    So humans would develop better eyesight to enable them to see food from further away. Smell would become less important, because most food sources would be too far away to detect that way. Daylight becomes the preferred time to be active.



    If humans were already fully bipedal when they chose the environment, then we have our explanation right there. They would have been the only fully bipedal species in the area, and if full bipedalism gives them an advantage at being able to stand high above the surface of the water and spot food below, then they would have no competition.
    How did they transition to being "fully bipedal"
    in that scenario then?
    Becoming fully bipedal is much more energy efficient than walking on all 4's. The goal isn't speed. Just range.

    Also a fully bipedal creature has the furthest view ahead, because they're keeping their eyes at a higher point.


    Zero competition is an incredibly strong selective trait for choosing an environment to specialize in. It also tends to make the food from that environment extremely abundant for the organism that has access to it. And an exceptionally abundant meat source would explain how humans got big brains. (Seems to be a prerequisite for getting there.)
    "Zero competition" is NOT an select-able trait.
    It's the most selectable of all, but only if you are lucky enough to find such a niche. So I guess finding it isn't something you can select. That's just luck. But choosing it once you find it is about the strongest selection there is.

    I mean that, if you find yourself in a zero competition niche, then you're facing very strong selection toward changing to adapt to that niche more and more.

    "An exceptionally abundant meat source" DOES NOT "explain how humans got big brains". You might need the big brains to capture your meat supply when you are an animal that isn't fast, doesn't have sharp long canine teeth or claws. Paleoichneum says my arguments are bordering on Lamarkian Evolution, but that claim is the worst so far.
    Selection is a two sided pincer. The selection against big brains in nature is the fact they require more nutrients than small brains require.

    You can either reduce the selection against, or increase the selection for, or both. In the water niche, I'd say that we have both. Increased intelligence makes the human better able to open up mollusk shells. Abundant supply of meat makes the increased intelligence cheap.


    So if we weren't already fully bipedal when we got there, then half of Aquatic Ape Hypothesis' explaining power is lost.
    I don't believe that was the case, so your argument reverts to opinion.
    If we already had good eyesight and a bipedal stance, then the mollusks and stuff in the shallow pools near the beach would be easy prey to us. But not easy prey to the majority of our competitors.

    On the other hand, if we arrived without those traits, we'd have less ability to hunt them.


    Here is an insight. Any genetic mutation is going to affect one single individual to begin with.
    So any change has to start with an individual finding its mutation an advantage.
    Start explaining your ideas from a starting point like that. Most anatomical changes are going to involve the switches and will require long term selection, but a single deletion to a dominant gene will be immediate.

    So you won't get a chimp with a human foot from a single mutation is that correct?
    But you could get a chimp born without strong jaw muscles. It would be like having muscular dystrophy. Do you agree with that.
    In the Savannah theory?

    In Savannah theory, all 4 appendages have a strong reason to transform into feet. However the forelimb's usefulness as a grasping mechanism is so advantageous that it probably wouldn't give in to that selection. The hind limb, on the other hand, is less useful for grasping. Nearly useless on the Savannah. So over time it would start to specialize toward being better at supporting weight.

    Each human who mutated in the direction of having less of a hand and more of a foot on their hind limb would gain just that much more walking power, to aid them in getting from one food source to the next.

    After a while, the hind limb has totally become a pure foot. Now the human starts to want to put more of the burden of walking on the specialized limb, because it is specialized. Less and less of the walking is done by the forelimb (since it is still a hand, and only partly useful as a foot.)

    So as more and more of the workload transfers to the hind limb, eventually the creature stops using its forelimbs for locomotion altogether.
    I agree with a lot of your ideas, they certainly work in the Savannah theory" and they would work in the Aquatic Theory as well for the walking would be done between the place of roosting for the night (up trees or cliffs etc) and to the places of food at the coast (now these could be quite far apart).
    We have seen in recent times reasons not to live too close to the water's edge, there are tsunamis and floods and lakes can burp toxic gasses at times too. So I think a degree of distance is important.
    By "selectable trait" I was meaning a genetic/phenotypic trait that is inheritable but you are talking more of an environment or niche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #604  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    I think this study on Aquatic Apes has brought out some really interesting points. To me the timing of menstrual cycles to be affected by the Moon, and the fact that shell fish have been proven to have aphrodisiac properties (as well as being really good for maintaining brain development) indicates that the pre-human hominids left the lake sides and went to the coasts at some stage. At the coast the chances of fossilization would be right down compared to the inland lakes and rivers. So we end up with a huge gap in the history from 6 million ya from Orrorin tugenensis to about about 2.33 million ya to the Homo habilis variant. By this time tool use was mastered and the savannah then became another region of food availability.
    As a guide from Wikipedia:
    Homo habilis is a species of the Hominini tribe, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago, during the Gelasian Pleistocene period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #605  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    What often gets ignored in discussions about evolution is the concept of "invasive species". It is ironic, but it is sometimes more likely that the best adaptive trait for one environment would be more likely to involve in a totally different environment.

    This is why many countries have laws requiring recreational boaters to demonstrate they have cleaned the bottom of their boats when they move from one body of water to another. There is a fear that a species that evolved in one ecosystem might have too much of an overwhelming advantage over the local species in another ecosystem. It is a weird thing, but it happens quite a lot.

    Humanity might have been the result of several ecosystem crossovers. First living in the trees causes us to evolve hands and become dependent upon them for grasping (because our mouths had become less useful in that respect), and gain partial bipedalism. Then we are pushed out of the jungle into the Savannah, keeping our hands, and we go on to become completely bipedal. (But we weren't exactly an "invasive species on the Savannah. We just eeked out a pathetic living there.)

    However the traits we gained from those two environments did make us an "invasive species" when we first encountered shallow tidepools. The combination of traits we possessed gave us an overwhelming advantage, and we gained abundant access to sea animal meat. This massively increased our intelligence. And, once we had evolved high intelligence, we were an "invasive species" everywhere.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #606  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What often gets ignored in discussions about evolution is the concept of "invasive species". It is ironic, but it is sometimes more likely that the best adaptive trait for one environment would be more likely to involve in a totally different environment.

    This is why many countries have laws requiring recreational boaters to demonstrate they have cleaned the bottom of their boats when they move from one body of water to another. There is a fear that a species that evolved in one ecosystem might have too much of an overwhelming advantage over the local species in another ecosystem. It is a weird thing, but it happens quite a lot.

    Humanity might have been the result of several ecosystem crossovers. First living in the trees causes us to evolve hands and become dependent upon them for grasping (because our mouths had become less useful in that respect), and gain partial bipedalism. Then we are pushed out of the jungle into the Savannah, keeping our hands, and we go on to become completely bipedal. (But we weren't exactly an "invasive species on the Savannah. We just eeked out a pathetic living there.)

    However the traits we gained from those two environments did make us an "invasive species" when we first encountered shallow tidepools. The combination of traits we possessed gave us an overwhelming advantage, and we gained abundant access to sea animal meat. This massively increased our intelligence. And, once we had evolved high intelligence, we were an "invasive species" everywhere.

    Population crowding (the unfortunate, but inevitable result of a species being too well adapted to its environment), forced a portion of the population to move inland. But the coast is still where the majority of luxury resorts are built today.
    Sounds like a fair theory to me, except I'd change the aquatic and savannah around.
    I see you've been around here for a while March 2007, were you one of the original members?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #607  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm starting to wonder which environment would select more strongly for the human foot now. Walking on the Savannah would select for a foot of some kind to replace the hands on our hind limbs, but the human foot in its present form I don't know. In its present form, the human foot is long and a bit clumbsy.

    And no. I wasn't one of the founders. Nor do I have any admin rights. And also the other forum members only rarely agree with anything I say. So I'm not the best person to ask, if you are wondering whether a given viewpoint is close enough to established science to be well received.

    I can tell you that you will get a lot further if you post links to reliable sources. Not woo sites. You know what I mean, right?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #608  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm starting to wonder which environment would select more strongly for the human foot now. Walking on the Savannah would select for a foot of some kind to replace the hands on our hind limbs, but the human foot in its present form I don't know. In its present form, the human foot is long and a bit clumbsy.

    And no. I wasn't one of the founders. Nor do I have any admin rights. And also the other forum members only rarely agree with anything I say. So I'm not the best person to ask, if you are wondering whether a given viewpoint is close enough to established science to be well received.

    I can tell you that you will get a lot further if you post links to reliable sources. Not woo sites. You know what I mean, right?
    As humans we have inhibited evolution by the use of technology. We use shoes instead. So the type of shoes we would wear in different environments would indicate what type of adaptations we'd be heading towards if it wasn't for our footwear. Depending on your environment.

    Swimming in water => flippers => wide long streamlined feet.

    Snow => snow shoes => All around the center of impact (broad heals as well)

    Hard rocky ground => thick soled boots => Hard pads on the soles of your feet for protection.

    Mountainous terrain => boots with crampons => feet that grip. Larger curled toe nails and friction pads.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 22nd, 2014 at 03:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Apes and Men
    By Heliopolis in forum Biology
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 10th, 2012, 12:33 AM
  2. Replies: 124
    Last Post: October 9th, 2012, 06:25 PM
  3. Apes to Humans - clues in starch
    By jimell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 1st, 2012, 04:00 PM
  4. We're bipedal because of (semi)aquatic ancestors? [Aquatic Ape Theory]
    By Supervixen in forum Anthropology, Archaeology and Palaeontology
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: August 21st, 2012, 10:44 PM
  5. morality in apes
    By captaincaveman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 18th, 2007, 09:16 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •