The aquatic ape hypothesis was never crazy

[CEngelbrecht]

Rings a small bell. Not taken seriously now though?

Uhuh.

The Waterside Ape - BBC Radio 4

 

[CEngelbrecht]

LOL

Humans may have lost their body hair when it was an advantageous adaption to the African climate. Savanah life, with few, if any, trees for shade, would "select" for the homo who could stay relatively cooler, IMNSHO.

Which is why savannah baboons are near-furless too.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Persistence predator. Able to run long distances and wear prey down because we could stay cool and prey could not.

Endurance hunting is the stupidest idea ever proposed about human origin.

 

[DaveC426913]

Endurance hunting is the stupidest idea ever proposed about human origin.

Ah.
So this isn't a "Come let us reason together, to the benefit of all" discussion.
It's a "My idea is less stupid than your idea, and I can only win by stepping on the heads of others."
Got it.

Great great start, CE.

(You do realize that persistence hunting is still practiced in some cultures today, right? i.e. it's isn't about paleo-anthropology - it's extant, today. We have living, breathing subjects - with blood still in their plump veins - to study.)


Anyway, this thread was doomed from post 1. I'm out.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

(You do realize that persistence hunting is still practiced in some cultures today, right? i.e. it's isn't about paleo-anthropology - it's extant, today. We have living, breathing subjects - with blood still in their plump veins - to study.)

They use spears.

 

[DaveC426913]

They use spears.

You said persistence hunting was "the stupidest idea ever proposed". What do spears have to do with it? You can't persistence hunt without spears?

I think the point is, if you run down a prey animal until it simply lays down in exhaustion, you don't need ranged weapons. Or, if you turn that on its head: if you don't have ranged weapons, what's a good way of taking down large prey? Out-running them would be a huge survival advantage.

Not to mention that it is a very safe technique for the hunters. They could take down large prey without a fight. That's a lot of meat they would not otherwise have access to. Enough for a tribe to dominate its inferiors.

And the point still stands: people are still doing it today. We don't need to theorize over bone fragments. (I mean, we still do paleo-anthropology - but having an extant example of the thing you're theorizing about is pretty freakin' hard to argue with.)


But sure, let's just keep slinging spiteful poop at other theories - that'll def ensure your ideas are treated with respect....

 

[billvon]

It was never about being "ALMOST ENTIRELY AQUATIC". You have been flat out lied to about this one . . .

OK. So why did you lie about it? I got all that from the graphic you posted.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

You said persistence hunting was "the stupidest idea ever proposed". What do spears have to do with it? You can't persistence hunt without spears?

That's exactly right.

I think the point is, if you run down a prey animal until it simply lays down in exhaustion, you don't need ranged weapons. Or, if you turn that on its head: if you don't have ranged weapons, what's a good way of taking down large prey? Out-running them would be a huge survival advantage.

And somehow, you don't get exhausted. And you don't die of thirst within four days either. While savannah baboons have been clocked going 23 days without a fresh drink.

Not to mention that it is a very safe technique for the hunters. They could take down large prey without a fight. That's a lot of meat they would not otherwise have access to. Enough for a tribe to dominate its inferiors.

Then go do it now. Without any tools to help you out.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's exactly right.

Undefended claim. Dismissed.

And somehow, you don't get exhausted. And you don't die of thirst within four days either. While savannah baboons have been clocked going 23 days without a fresh drink.

Who says you don't get exhausted? What matters is, you outlast your prey. They overheat from running; you don't.

You haven't done your homework, have you?

Then go do it now. Without any tools to help you out.

Who said no tools? You said no spears.

We know humans are chasing down prey today. I'm pretty sure me and a few buddies could choke out an antelope and slot its throat if it were laid out in exhaustion.


Is this you, sciencing? I think I know why you're being laughed at.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Who says you don't get exhausted? What matters is, you outlast your prey. They overheat from running; you don't.

Uhuh, sure you don't. Try it. Out there on the dry savannah.

We know humans are chasing down prey today. I'm pretty sure me and a few buddies could choke out an antelope and slot its throat if it were laid out in exhaustion.

Then try that now. With a gazelle that completes the marathon three times faster than Haile Gebrselassie. Before you evolve the brain power to wield tools.

Is this you, sciencing? I think I know why you're being laughed at.

Right, 'cause mockery kills the argument every time.

 

[DaveC426913]

Uhuh, sure you don't. Try it. Out there on the dry savannah.

I guess you're denying that they're doing it right now then.

Then try that now. With a gazelle that completes the marathon three times faster than Haile Gebrselassie.

How can you claim to be knowledgeable about paleoanthropology and fail to grasp the central concept of persistence hunting?

It's not about speed. Gazelles run fast, until they tire. And then they stop running. They are not built for jogging long distances.

Do your homework, man.

Right, 'cause mockery kills the argument every time.

... he said, while mocking established theories such as persistence hunting ...

Well you've kicked that door wide open, so no complaining now.


Pro-tip: comparing oneself to a giant in their field (such as Darwin) is worth at least 40 points on the "Are You a Crackpot" Index:

1. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
2. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

Not saying' you're a crackpot; just sayin' you might want to avoid acting like one.

 

[exchemist]

Uhuh, sure you don't. Try it. Out there on the dry savannah.



Then try that now. With a gazelle that completes the marathon three times faster than Haile Gebrselassie. Before you evolve the brain power to wield tools.



Right, 'cause mockery kills the argument every time.

Do you think you can dismiss the concept of persistence hunting by mockery, then?

Persistence hunting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did humans evolve to chase down prey over long distances?

Outrunning prey over long distances is an efficient method of hunting for humans, and it was widely used until recently, according to an analysis of ethnographic accounts

www.newscientist.com

This Britannica article https://www.britannica.com/topic/persistence-hunting makes clear the hypothesis is not universally accepted: but uses an argument about the evidence, rather than resorting to mockery.

 

[TheVat]

Endurance hunting is the stupidest idea ever proposed about human origin.

It's the most supported theory. Theories like AAH are rejected because other theories emerge as more supported by multiple lines of evidence, not because a mob of angry torch-bearing science villagers came for it.

Consider sweat gland density. Humans have a higher density than other apes because of a change in a set of regulatory alleles. It's called an enhancer region, and it controls the phenotypic expression of a gene that builds sweat glands.

Humans have way more eccrine glands than apocrine, which allows them to sweat profusely. This was combined with fur loss which allowed sweat to evaporate quickly and cool the body.

There's also our massive shift away from other apes in our ratio of slow-twitch to fast-twitch muscle fibers - this uniquely adapted us to running long distances.

Here's some other changes, all of them also well documented - long legs, spring-like Achilles tendons, arched feet, nuchal ligament, wider vertebral column, and larger hindlimb joints. These are all excellent adaptations to run long distances.

Multiple lines of evidence are what cause scientists to gravitate towards the PH (persistence hunting) theory, and away from the aquatic ape.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the point is, if you run down a prey animal until it simply lays down in exhaustion, you don't need ranged weapons. Or, if you turn that on its head: if you don't have ranged weapons, what's a good way of taking down large prey? Out-running them would be a huge survival advantage.

African painted dogs showed the Kalahari bushmen how to do it. I've worked with them at the Endangered Wolf Center here in St. Louis, they hunted me every time I got near their compound. They may be the sharpest canids on the planet. But they don't have spears.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

I guess you're denying that they're doing it right now then.

Using tools not available to early hominins not yet growing their brains.

How can you claim to be knowledgeable about paleoanthropology and fail to grasp the central concept of persistence hunting?

No tools available to kickstart the process.

It's not about speed. Gazelles run fast, until they tire. And then they stop running. They are not built for jogging long distances.

Three times faster on the marathon. Various potential prey are between 1.5 to 4 times faster than we could ever have been. And they can go weeks without a fresh drink of water. Even the very best human marathon runners today out right risk their lives crawling across the finish line, if they skip the last drinking station.

You do your homework. Endurance hunting was always a really stupid idea, a desperate attempt at keeping the savannah hypothesis alive.

Not saying' you're a crackpot; just sayin' you might want to avoid acting like one.

"For the topic's own sake."
- Charles Darwin

 

[CEngelbrecht]

It's the most supported theory. Theories like AAH are rejected because other theories emerge as more supported by multiple lines of evidence, not because a mob of angry torch-bearing science villagers came for it.

Consider sweat gland density. Humans have a higher density than other apes because of a change in a set of regulatory alleles. It's called an enhancer region, and it controls the phenotypic expression of a gene that builds sweat glands.

Humans have way more eccrine glands than apocrine, which allows them to sweat profusely. This was combined with fur loss which allowed sweat to evaporate quickly and cool the body.

There's also our massive shift away from other apes in our ratio of slow-twitch to fast-twitch muscle fibers - this uniquely adapted us to running long distances.

Here's some other changes, all of them also well documented - long legs, spring-like Achilles tendons, arched feet, nuchal ligament, wider vertebral column, and larger hindlimb joints. These are all excellent adaptations to run long distances.

Multiple lines of evidence are what cause scientists to gravitate towards the PH (persistence hunting) theory, and away from the aquatic ape.

Look into hippo sweat.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

African painted dogs showed the Kalahari bushmen how to do it. I've worked with them at the Endangered Wolf Center here in St. Louis, they hunted me every time I got near their compound. They may be the sharpest canids on the planet. But they don't have spears.

Seriously, that's your argument in favor of EH? That a canine evolved with the relevant physiological tools can hunt this way? Therefore primitive hominins would've done it too without having any of them, before growing their brain?

 

[TheVat]

Look into hippo sweat.

Why? Another red herring.

The core problem is that AAH is an umbrella hypothesis. Do you understand what that is? You can't really disprove it. It has the flavor of being a parsimonious explanation, but it is depending on cherry-picking traits acquired at wildly different times and is really no more powerful an explanation than the null hypothesis. (viz. human evolution is not particularly guided by water) Yes, bands of hominids camped by water, left fossil evidence there, because, erm, that's a good place to camp. There's often shade, water for bathing and drinking, and I hear the fishing goes better when you have water.

If PH theory were overturned, that would still not validate AAH. Theory is not a binary matter. Mobility adaptations that could aid hunting can also aid other means of survival - gathering can also be a long-range activity. Spotting predators is also aided by tall legs. Etc.

 

[billvon]

Using tools not available to early hominins not yet growing their brains.

Early hominids were both growing their brains and using tools. Our most recent common ancestors are chimpanzees and bonobos; they both use tools (sticks, rocks.) Picking up a rock and bashing a gazelle's head in was within that MRCA's skill set even before their cephalic evolution took off.

No tools available to kickstart the process.

As mentioned, they already had tools.

Three times faster on the marathon. Various potential prey are between 1.5 to 4 times faster than we could ever have been.

Not over long distances.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The African Painted Dogs chivvy prey in relays. They tend to run them in big circles so the hunt will come close to where the next relay is resting.

Those little guys can make a deer disappear in a few minutes. They used to stalk me when I was volunteering at the Endangered Wolf Center (St. Louis). Twelve foot fence never seemed to be high enough. They frequently eyeballed it, just wondering. I sometimes think they spawned the phrase "Don't run! You'll only die tired."