The aquatic ape hypothesis was never crazy

[TheVat]

No, that's literally the reference.

Um, that's the citation that went with the passage I had earlier quoted (because it doesn't fit your narrative):

A German physician pointed out the health risks of infant diving and the sometimes serious consequences as early as 1986, writing that since the introduction of baby swimming in Germany, several hundred infants had died from brain complications as a result of sinusitis and otitis that occurred after diving. Pediatricians also reported cases of cardiac arrest or respiratory failure.

Did you read the wiki article you cited?

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

"hydrofeminism"

...again I stumble with something I could well have made-up as a joke/parody randomly. Makes me wonder if has any link with the whole thing of "physics being sexist/masculinist for privileging masculine solids over feminine fluids."

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

'Cause those evolved in colder climates. Keep up!

(Referring to "many mammals that are far more aquatic than humans (in mainstream science thinking) are all furry")

There are several on tropical climates: African and Asian otters, platypus, capybara, water buffalo, water opossum, the fishing cat, to name a few. At the same time, there can be hairless aquatic mammals in cold environmens Arctic and Antarctic environments, such as whales of those regions and walruses. The hairlessness in aquatic mammals seems to have to do more with flubber making hair useless for thermal insulation than an adaptive necessity for aquatic and semi-aquatic environments themselves. Rodents are the most numerous branch of mammals, and no aquatic/semiaquatic rodent is hairless, although some non-aquatic rodents have hairless tails. The naked mole rat is more rodent naked than humans, perhaps some people would suggest human cavemen hairlessness evolved under similar circumstances and reduced after we became less and less spelunkolous over time. That would be ironically more parsimonious than "humans evolved from primates converging with sirenids," as at least we did live in caves more considerably so than anything solid about this cryptopaleontological stage.

Among primates themselves, the degree to which their habitats/lifestyles involve being in the water also doesn't seem to have a correlation with being less hairy. The most hairless after humans are probably chimpanzees (follicle-count wise it's actually the same) and gorillas, which sort of hints at some kind of random phylogenetic baggage rather than any strong adaptive explanation for the degrees of hairiness/hairlessness among living apes, although it doesn't seem altogether implausible that it's a lower degree of the same thermoregulatory adaptation, which seems to be semi-uniquely primate in this configuration. It seems rather rare for other mammals to have naked faces (and ventral area), even semi-aquatic mammals. Perhaps with proportionately bigger brains holding up significant warmth, primates benefited from a naked face working as a heat-sink near the brain, I don't know. Doesn't seem to explain the ventral hairlessness either, the brain "demand" at least, although makes sense for thermal regulation in semi/sporadic bipedal animals, I guess.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

(Referring to "many mammals that are far more aquatic than humans (in mainstream science thinking) are all furry")

There are several on tropical climates: African and Asian otters, platypus, capybara, water buffalo, water opossum, the fishing cat, to name a few.

All smaller than them beach hominins. Different energy balance, too expensive to evolve skin fat for insulation, like them beach hominins did. No blubber. Physical size and climate dictates whether the fur needs to go or not when adapting to water. Standard knowledge in paleontology.

At the same time, there can be hairless aquatic mammals in cold environmens Arctic and Antarctic environments, such as whales of those regions and walruses.

Bigger creatures, different energy balance. Standard knowledge.

The hairlessness in aquatic mammals seems to have to do more with flubber making hair useless for thermal insulation than an adaptive necessity for aquatic and semi-aquatic environments themselves. Rodents are the most numerous branch of mammals, and no aquatic/semiaquatic rodent is hairless, although some non-aquatic rodents have hairless tails.

Largest rodent on earth is the semiaquatic capivara of the tropical Amazon, still smaller than hominins and therefore still furry.

The naked mole rat is more rodent naked than humans, perhaps some people would suggest human cavemen hairlessness evolved under similar circumstances and reduced after we became less and less spelunkolous over time.

No skin fat for insulation in naked mole rats. Because they're not semiaquatic.

That would be ironically more parsimonious than "humans evolved from primates converging with sirenids,"

Salamanders? Why the fuck salamanders?

as at least we did live in caves more considerably so than anything solid about this cryptopaleontological stage.

Caves then looking out over bodies of water. What a coincidence.

Among primates themselves, the degree to which their habitats/lifestyles involve being in the water also doesn't seem to have a correlation with being less hairy.

Smaller than hominins.

The most hairless after humans are probably chimpanzees (follicle-count wise it's actually the same) and gorillas, which sort of hints at some kind of random phylogenetic baggage rather than any strong adaptive explanation for the degrees of hairiness/hairlessness among living apes, although it doesn't seem altogether implausible that it's a lower degree of the same thermoregulatory adaptation, which seems to be semi-uniquely primate in this configuration. It seems rather rare for other mammals to have naked faces (and ventral area), even semi-aquatic mammals. Perhaps with proportionately bigger brains holding up significant warmth, primates benefited from a naked face working as a heat-sink near the brain, I don't know. Doesn't seem to explain the ventral hairlessness either, the brain "demand" at least, although makes sense for thermal regulation in semi/sporadic bipedal animals, I guess.

Uhuh.

Every single simian species becomes vertically bipedal when wading through shallow water. There you have the origin of human bipedalism. An odd exaptation to all simians descending from 35 million years old brachiating ancestors.

 

[exchemist]

"hydrofeminism"

...again I stumble with something I could well have made-up as a joke/parody randomly. Makes me wonder if has any link with the whole thing of "physics being sexist/masculinist for privileging masculine solids over feminine fluids."

Yes, "hydrofeminism" does look like a parody, I agree.

I've never come across the idea of physics being "masculinist" for "privileging" solids over liquids, though. Have you made that one up, or can you provide a reference or two? It sounds rather amusing. (I love the use of "privileging", turning privilege into a verb, by the way - seems authentically right-on. You've clearly got the lingo.)

 

[CEngelbrecht]

It is no less relevant than yours, as it appears you have done little to educate yourself on paleoanthropology beyond reading one book.

This is a discussion forum, not a book club. You have an obligation to bring your specific arguments forth. We do not have an obligation to do your homework for you.

Then let's discuss it. What's the kill argument? Why couldn't our ancestors have been them beach apes? Say, two million years ago as Homo erectus sporting that surfer's ear?

John Langdon's "umbrella hypothesis" didn't cut it. 'Cause you're fine with all the other umbrella hypotheses out there. Copernicus', Galileo's, Newton's, Darwin's, Mendel's, Einstein's, Wegener's. They flipped open that umbrella too. They all had to fight for their right to be right too. You cheer all those umbrellas. 'Cause they're ordained by your clergy today.

#22
"My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch."
- Alister Hardy, 1960

...in the shallow waters off the coast...

...in the shallow waters off the coast...

...in the shallow waters off the coast...


Where are them mermaids? Where are they? 64 years later?

Why won't you discuss the actual idea? Why does it have to be about something it never was? Why does it have to be out in the open sea?

Sure is a strange pseudoscientific idea when you all have to lie about its content to keep rejecting it. Could that be why it just won't go away? Because of all these unjust lies? Because you piss on your own giant too, like it was done to all those listed above that you cheer on now like a conforming hypocrite?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why couldn't our ancestors have been them beach apes?

I didn't say they couldn't. It's just a weak hypothesis. There are much stronger ones. Ones that do more than imagine and suppose...

I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas

...imagining ... supposing ... imagining ... supposing
That quote isn't the flex you think it is.

Where is the evidence to support a preponderance of seaside gatherings, piles of bones, tools, etc.? We do find that in the Savannah.

Why won't you discuss the actual idea?

Funny you mention that. I've been asking you to discuss the actual idea for almost 200 posts. You haven't wanted to.

What are you saying? Are you planning to come out from under your troll bridge? Will you stay out, or is this just a moment of rational discourse until the next time you find a good insult? Should anyone trust you, after 200 posts of this?

Sure is a strange pseudoscientific idea when you all have to lie about its content to keep rejecting it. Could that be why it just won't go away? Because of all these unjust lies?

Ooh, so close! Well, that didn't last long, did it? Two paragraphs?

You keep forfeiting the privilege of being taken seriously.

You let me know when you're ready to be taken seriously for more than a few paragraphs, mKay? Will we have to wait another few years?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Where is the evidence to support a preponderance of seaside gatherings, piles of bones, tools, etc.?

Thanks for asking:

Aural exostoses (surfer’s ear) provide vital fossil evidence of an aquatic phase in Man’s early evolution

They were there all along. In both erectus and Neanderthal.

We do find that in the Savannah.

No, you don't.

"Just 10 years ago, to a large London audience, with a histrionic gesture, I said, 'The Savannah Hypothesis is no more! Open that window and throw it out!' At Sterkfontein and other South African sites and East African ones, these early hominids were all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals. Of course, if savannah is eliminated as a primary cause for selective advantage of going on two legs, then we are back to square one."
— Phillip Tobias, 2005

Welcome to the world. You're thirty years late. There never was any evidence to support the savannah hypothesis. While there is plenty to support the semiaquatic one.

The Savannah Hypotheses: Origin, Reception and Impact on Paleoanthropology (2012)
"The reconstruction of the human past is a complex task characterized by a high level of interdisciplinarity. How do scientists from different fields reach consensus on crucial aspects of paleoanthropological research? The present paper explores this question through an historical analysis of the origin, development, and reception of the savannah hypotheses (SHs). We show that this model neglected to investigate crucial biological aspects which appeared to be irrelevant in scenarios depicting early hominins evolving in arid or semi-arid open plains. For instance, the exploitation of aquatic food resources and other aspects of hominin interaction with water were largely ignored in classical paleoanthropology. These topics became central to alternative ideas on human evolution known as aquatic hypotheses. Since the aquatic model is commonly regarded as highly controversial, its rejection led to a stigmatization of the whole spectrum of topics around water use in non-human hominoids and hominins. We argue that this bias represents a serious hindrance to a comprehensive reconstruction of the human past. Progress in this field depends on clear differentiation between hypotheses proposed to contextualize early hominin evolution in specific environmental settings and research topics which demand the investigation of all relevant facets of early hominins' interaction with complex landscapes."

You let me know when you're ready to be taken seriously for more than a few paragraphs, mKay? Will we have to wait another few years?

Why don't you want to talk about them beach apes? Why does it have to be about mermaids? Why is the distortion necessary, if it's so obviously wrong?

...the shallow waters off the coast...

...the shallow waters off the coast...

...the shallow waters off the coast... (1960)

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for asking:

Aural exostoses (surfer’s ear) provide vital fossil evidence of an aquatic phase in Man’s early evolution

They were there all along. In both erectus and Neanderthal.

That's speculative. Where are the extant signs of large communities at the beach? Tools, bones, etc.

No, you don't.

"Just 10 years ago, to a large London audience, with a histrionic gesture, I said, 'The Savannah Hypothesis is no more! Open that window and throw it out!' At Sterkfontein and other South African sites and East African ones, these early hominids were all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals. Of course, if savannah is eliminated as a primary cause for selective advantage of going on two legs, then we are back to square one."
— Phillip Tobias, 2005

There is no evidence in that quote.

AAT was also dismissed. But you seem to feel that is not compelling enough for you to give up. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml

Why does it have to be about mermaids?

I have never mentioned mermaids. Are you confusing me with someone else again?

 

[DaveC426913]

That right there? That is you being the creationist.

That literally makes no sense. You quoted someone saying the savannah hypothesis is dead. But there's no content in that quote about why that might be so. That's all I pointed out. What on Earth does does a valid, true observation about your quote have to do with Creationism?

Please put more thought into your responses.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me address the central issue.

You appear to posit a sort of halfway hypothesis to rescue a floundering AAT. You posit that protohumans were not fully marine, but lived on the beaches, hunting in the shallows, yes?

Why then would that cause them to lose their hair? They're just landlubbers who play in the shallows, right?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Let me address the central issue.

You appear to posit a sort of halfway hypothesis to rescue a floundering AAT. You posit that protohumans were not fully marine, but lived on the beaches, hunting in the shallows, yes?

Why then would that cause them to lose their hair? They're just landlubbers who play in the shallows, right?

'Cause no semiaquatic mammal is furless, obviously.

Same level of aquaticism. One in fresh water, one in both fresh and salt, in different epochs.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who said it?

If you want to present someone's evidence that a hypothesis is dead, then you present that evidence. If all you offer is a name, that's argument by authority.

 

[DaveC426913]

'Cause no semiaquatic mammal is furless, obviously.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have an answer? Why would playing in the shallows cause an otherwise fully furred hominid to lose its hair?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

You didn't answer my question. Do you have an answer? Why would playing in the shallows cause an otherwise fully furred hominid to lose its hair?

Because it's a semiaquatic species. Picking brain-selective foods for two million years, growing its brain bigger and bigger. The only animal meat you can eat raw to this day and digest in full.

It wasn't just "playing in the shallows". It was finding food for survival for hundreds of thousands of years. Stop belittling this brilliant observation.

 

[DaveC426913]

By the way, your comparison to hippos, before you thought of that, did you even bother to look into whether the hippo's immediate ancestors were fully furred?

They weren't. They hadn't been furred for at least 35 million years, possibly more. An order of magnitude longer than hominids. It's a pretty terrible comparison. Superficial traits should not be confused with common causes or origins. That's a rookie mistake.

It wasn't just "playing in the shallows", stop belittling this brilliant observation.

Hello? You keep referring to them as beach apes. Don't blame your murky labels on others.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because it's a semiaquatic species. Picking brain-selective foods for two million years, growing its brain bigger and bigger. The only animal meat you can eat raw to this day and digest in full.

What does this have to do with hair loss? Please try not to get lost.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

By the way, your comparison to hippos, before you thought of that, did you even bother to look into whether the hippo's immediate ancestors were fully furred?

They weren't. They hadn't been furred for at least 35 million years, possibly more. An order of magnitude longer than hominids, so it's a pretty terrible comparison - a rookie mistake.

Why would length of time matter? The selective pressure was the same whether over 35 or 5 million years.

We match the freediving capacity of both hippos and sea otters.

Hello? You keep referring to them as beach apes. Don't blame your murky labels on others.

Just trying to keep the language at your level. "Waterside" seems to make you freak too.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

What does this have to do with hair loss? Please try not to get lost.

Semiaquatic mammals get furless too. If size of the animal and the climate zone's medial temperature allow for that energy balance.

Chimpanzees and gorillas have no skin fat for insulation. 'Cause they kept their fur knuckle-walking in the jungles, while humans headed to the beach, where they evolved a form of blubber.

 

[billvon]

Chimpanzees and gorillas have no skin fat for insulation.

Not true at all. That's one of the places they store their fat, just like humans. And humans have nothing like the blubber that true marine mammals have.