The aquatic ape hypothesis was never crazy

[CEngelbrecht]

300kyr = most likely neandertalensis

Either or. Same surfer's ear.

 

[Pinball1970]

I swear I did not go looking for this. It popped up spontaneously on physicsforums.com.

Human vs Animals Ultramarathon (100km)

This video features a 100km ultramarathon race between animals and humans, revealing unexpected results. Previously, we showcased a 500-meter sprint where the cheetah triumphed. Here, we focus on long-distance efficiency.

We calculated each animal's time, factoring in rest, hydration, and feeding, using five reliable sources, including three research papers.

It's important to note that such a race has never [been documented] due to the complexities of animal behavior. While there have been many 35km races between humans and horses, horses have always emerged victorious.

Human efficiency is key in long distances, shaped by millions of years of evolution for hunting and migration. Our upright posture has allowed us to develop tools and improve our legs and feet for running. Human feet, with their unique arches, are designed for long-distance running.

Additionally, our superior sweating system helps us regulate heat during intense exercise, preventing overheating—a challenge for fur-covered animals.

Genetics influence endurance, but training and conditioning play a significant role in enhancing it. Watch this animation and find out which one of these amazing creatures comes out first!

This is merely a visualization, not to be taken as compelling, although it is based on the data from several relaible sources and research papers.

(I expect CE will reject this with some reference to communist sheeple and Galilaean inquisitions or some such vague paranoia. But the hallmark of a zealot is that they will reject all contrary evidence, no matter how much is available, in favour of their pet hypothesis.)

I saw this on PF, really good and surprising!

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Very helpful review of the background to the issues, thanks. Two points seem especially pertinent:

1) The various traits cited to support the AAH seem to have evolved at different times, making it hard to see how they could have been adaptations driven by a waterside existence.

Which was obviously never a problem for the savannah shit. Thrasymachus reigns still over the ivory towers.

Bipedalism evolved in fresh water +5mya. The growing brain evolved in salt ~2mya. Problem solved after 100 years of academic confusion, courtesy of Algis Kuliukas. You're welcome.

2) Fossils are found mostly far from waterside habitats.

[*ahem*] CP:

the majority of fossils are marine.

--

It may be that Morgan, as a non-scientist herself, achieved something useful by drawing attention to male-dominated assumptions in the science - what she called the “Tarzan” school of thought. And it may be that there were colonies of apes living beside the water, and that one should not simply assume a savannah habitat for them all. But, regarding the last piece you quote, it seems to me just as vital as it ever was to separate science from politics, and that includes the identity politics of feminism.

Funny how the quintessential showbiz iteration of the E. R. Burroughs literary image of primal (white) man was portrayed by an Olympic swimmer and not some strongman.

Even Disney drew him diving all over the place in that jungle. Those beach apes are still back there in your subconscious.

 

[billvon]

Funny how the quintessential showbiz iteration of the E. R. Burroughs literary image of primal (white) man was portrayed by an Olympic swimmer and not some strongman. Even Disney drew him . . .

Ah! I see the problem here. Those were fiction, which means they are not real. If you base your theories on fiction, it . . . explains a lot of your positions.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Ah! I see the problem here. Those were fiction, which means they are not real. If you base your theories on fiction, it . . . explains a lot of your positions.

.

 

[Pinball1970]

So are the savannah hypotheses out or not? #219

You are just taking quotes and jumping on them, these sort of scientific discussions are not cut and dried linear or necessarily dichotomous.

Ancestral apes moving from an arboreal existence to a more migratory, savannah existence obviously happened.
If the current models for that and out of Africa are not correct this does not automatically mean there is a valid AAH.

You need to study the fossil record and note the differences as they occur through Evolutionary time.
Study the environment as it was then, 100,000 years ago, 500,000, 2 million and so on.
There are gaps in the fossil record, gaps in what is known about the ancient environments at the time, these have to factored in.

This is why there are different models of migration, evolutionary lineages.

Picking a winner with no solid published science behind it makes no sense.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

You are just taking quotes and jumping on them, these sort of scientific discussions are not cut and dried linear or necessarily dichotomous.

Ancestral apes moving from an arboreal existence to a more migratory, savannah existence obviously happened.

No, there's no obvious. That's the real tragedy here. The already known fossils can't actually support it. It was just assumed, because the Fraternity, very reluctantly, was forced to move the Cradle of Man from ice age steppe hunters to black, black Africa post 1953. Then it was "obviously" the grasslands of Africa, 'cause it had been in Eurasia. That's the only reason you're all still blabbing about the savannah. It's not based on any actual evidence. And Phillip Tobias called that out to you in 1995. But you still prefer Plato's shadows.

If the current models for that and out of Africa are not correct this does not automatically mean there is a valid AAH.

No, but it's the only one currently left standing. Fully within the scientific method. Mama Nature don't care if you don't like it.

You need to study the fossil record and note the differences as they occur through Evolutionary time.

'Cause you must assume I haven't already.

Study the environment as it was then, 100,000 years ago, 500,000, 2 million and so on.

'Cause obviously I haven't already.

There are gaps in the fossil record, gaps in what is known about the ancient environments at the time, these have to factored in.

And obviously all these aquatic lunatics haven't already. 64 years down the road.

This is why there are different models of migration, evolutionary lineages.

Picking a winner with no solid published science behind it makes no sense.

Oh, it's published. You're just not supposed to ever read up on it. Nothing handing any credence to Morgan is allowed. You are not to stop laughing. Who cares what human origin actually was? Nullius in Verba does not apply on ourselves. Not in 1632, not in 1972.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, but it's the only one currently left standing. Fully within the scientific method.

Remember, they're hypotheses, which means they have yet to be corroborated with sufficient evidence to dominate the field.

Mama Nature don't care if you don't like it.

You don't speak for Mother Nature. What Mother Nature has to say is what we are in the midst of debating.


Your bloviating on authorities is self-contradictory.You're attempting to have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to try to tear down you opponent authorities on the subject of proto-human evolution, you can't then turn around and rely on authorities to tell us all when a hypothesis is "dead".

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Remember, they're hypotheses, which means they have yet to be corroborated with sufficient evidence to dominate the field.

No, it is. These aquatic ideas are right here right now better supported by conventional evidence and observation than is the Big Bang theory. Only human gorilla behavior keeps it from dominating the relevant field already. As has happened to most the great voices of science through science, from Galileo to Wegener. Being right is just not enough.

You don't speak for Mother Nature.

No, I let the scientific method do that. That's all we need.

Your bloviating on authorities is self-contradictory.You're attempting to have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to try to tear down you opponent authorities on the subject of proto-human evolution, you can't then turn around and rely on authorities to tell us all when a hypothesis is "dead".

So you agree it was an authority that announced the death of the savannah hypotheses in London in 1995? The same voice that said you have to deal with water and human evolution?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Wrong, all your stupid conspiracy theory nonsense on my Homo naledi thread is still there for all to see.

Yes, that's right. And that will suddenly explode into an even bigger crisis for paleoanthropology than the Piltdown Man ever was. 'Cause that is really obvious too. And I'm sure you will blame these Raymond Darts for that embarrassment too when it happens, and not the frat boys that desperately needed all those ape fossils to be hominins, otherwise they wouldn't get the next budget to go hunting for more.

It seems you have a paleoanthropology conspiracy thing going on, makes a change from COVID, 911, Lizard Royal family, flat earth, deliberate hurricanes etc I'll give you that.

More false association, because you just can't find the kill argument for this one either.

With that I will leave you to it, I do not want to dilute your thread with crazy things like, scientific published literature, scientific method, scientific consensus, evidence etc.

No, it's because you don't have a case. Even if all this wetness should somehow still be wrong (which isn't very likely at this point), it was just never crazy. And yet you all kept screaming it was. Never made any sense to be so hysterical about a little splash-splash idea about human origin that suddenly explained so many confusing details left over from Darwin. Unless... you go through the history books and see how they all had to fight for their right to be right. All those umbrella hypotheses you praise now like conforming hypocrites. 'Cause now you think we know everything.

 

[Pinball1970]

Cause now you think we know everything

That is the complete opposite of how I read the literature and consensus and I am sure it is similar for those you continue to rant against.
There IS controversy regarding Homo naledi but you have not cited one single aspect of it.
I am totally ambivalent to any scientific theory, I am not invested, looking for sponsorship, grants or tenure, I just want to know how the universe, planet earth and life on it operates and came to be, it is interesting to me.
AAH is no longer discussed in the serious scientific community, if something comes up I will be happy to absorb that information.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Probably late, but whattahey.

AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Yes, Neanderthals ate shellfish in Gibraltar, and evidence of their use of marine resources has been found in caves on the Rock of Gibraltar:

• Vanguard Cave
  In this cave, archaeologists found a layer of ash with marine shells, including mussels of the species Mytilus galloprovincialis. The layer also contained a hearth, knapping debris, and Mousterian stone tools. This evidence suggests that Neanderthals collected and selected mollusks, transported them to the cave, cooked them, and ate them.
  
  
  
• Gorham's Cave
  This cave has evidence of marine mammal remains associated with Upper Paleolithic and Mousterian technologies.
  
  
  
• 1997 discovery
  Archaeologists found what they believe was a Neanderthal meal of mussels, pistachio, and tortoise in a cave on the Rock.
  
  

The evidence suggests that Neanderthals made focused visits to the coast and estuaries to exploit marine resources. This use of marine resources is interesting because it's rarely found with any hominine before anatomically modern humans.

 

[DaveC426913]

So a seaside diet of marine fish and shellfish is correllated with extinction. (jk)

 

[CEngelbrecht]

So a seaside diet of marine fish and shellfish is correllated with extinction. (jk)

Weird exaptation to mammalian intelligence, init? A batch of apes becomes really, really smart from eating oysters for two million years, and then they start switching to hunting terrestrial big game using that big brain, after which that brain gradually starts to dwindle back down, losing roughly 100cc of average volume over the next 40,000 years, while later still being capable of inventing terrestrial agriculture, which only accelerated their loss of brain from no longer having full diet access to the same amount of the nutritional building blocks needed to upkeep it.
Now with lesser brain but with their simian aggressive mating behavior still fully intact, some horny male finally invents the damn fission bomb! Nice use of your brain, "sapiens". And if that don't annihilate you, this the peak of evolution, this the master race, it will be you burning too much fifty million year old fossil carbon dioxide into your planet's atmosphere until your precious water-bug fueled brain can no longer fully concentrate above 600ppm, 'cause inside of just 200 years those fossils were so wonderfully profitable, and the fertile females were always something to be bought by those aggressive males in the name of excessive procreation. You getting that brain is out right causing the sixth mass extinction on Planet Earth, yours included.

Science sure is a cruel mistress, in'she? Who knows what more interesting shit you might find out, if you'd finally stop pissing on that irritating peasant Elaine Morgan's grave? How in the fuck were hers ever "obvious" pseudoscience? How the fuck dare you?!

"More to the point, we now face a world in which sources of DHA – our fish stocks – are threatened. That has crucial consequences for our species. Without plentiful DHA, we face a future of increased mental illness and intellectual deterioration. We need to face up to that urgently. That is the real lesson of the aquatic ape theory."
– Michael Crawford

 

[CEngelbrecht]

The evidence suggests that Neanderthals made focused visits to the coast and estuaries to exploit marine resources. This use of marine resources is interesting because it's rarely found with any hominine before anatomically modern humans.

Apart from that roasted catfish from 780,000 years ago in the Levant, oldest known human use of fire.

 

[sculptor]

I read the book a long time ago. The part wherein women lost their body hair and developed more subcutaneous fat because they stood in rivers catching fist seemed a tad peculiar. However: wandering along the shore taking advantage of ready food supplies---(It don't take much speed to outrun mollusks) and a safe place to retreat when one sees a predator---all makes sense. And then, we have the middens.

 

[Pinball1970]

You clearly haven't so far in this thread

Haven't what? I am not making any claims. Our ancestors clearly were arboreal African apes who migrated over land to Europe and Asia, that is a fact.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Haven't what? I am not making any claims.

You're asking for publications. Despite this thread being full of them quoted since page 1. And you just pretending they don't even exist. Still trying to silence it all to death. And it just ain't working.

Our ancestors clearly were arboreal African apes who migrated over land to Europe and Asia, that is a fact.

No, they migrated along the coasts of Southern Asia. That's why sapiens end up in Indonesia long before the Chinese river basins. Keep up!

 

[Pinball1970]

You're asking for publications. Despite this thread being full of them quoted since page 1. And you just pretending they don't even exist. Still trying to silence it all to death. And it just ain't working.



No, they migrated along the coasts of Southern Asia. That's why sapiens end up in Indonesia long before the Chinese river basins. Keep up!

They were arboreal and now WE are not.
There is ZERO evidence that the AAH from any part of human history.
How did they disperse from Africa? Exactly? That is a point of active research that I have already pointed out
The AAH adds nothing to that argument.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

They were arboreal and now WE are not.
There is ZERO evidence that the AAH from any part of human history.
How did they disperse from Africa? Exactly? That is a point of active research that I have already pointed out
The AAH adds nothing to that argument.

And then there's reality.

The dispersal of Homo sapiens across southern Asia: how early, how often, how complex?

"You know that look people get, when you say something they don't want to hear, so they just pretend you didn't say it?"
- Christopher Titus

So much more to discover out of this. And you refuse to even accept it was never crazy.

You deserve Trump.