Semi Aquatic ancestor theory

[TLM]

So, again, is it adaptation, not evolution ?

Apparently adaptation, I read an article about a cold weather research project, people were adapted to cold in about three weeks, one of the participants said that it was the most miserable time of his life. It also is "use it or lose it".

Cold weather is also one of the easiest way to lose weight, dress lightly and do some aerobic exercise like walking (without sweating!) 5h a day, eat as usual and lose 1kg a day. It also helps if one sleeps outside. (Tested that in Norway on a fishing trip, something of a surprise, I really did not have the need to lose weight at the time.

 

[Broch]

I am confused by the whole adaptation, evolution, selective breeding thing . There appears to have been a shift in the meaning of the words adaptation and evolution over the last twenty years or so - or more accurately, my understanding of the use of the words. Add to that gene selection and the whole subject is very confusing to my unprofessional little mind.

For example, I would suggest that the corn bunting is exactly the same species as the bird that was around in the Mesolithic - I presume, they could still breed. Yet I am told that the corn bunting is now a farmland bird that has evolved to take advantage of farm crops. Surely, it is the same bird that finds it easier to feed off farm crops than to go find wild seed i.e. it has adapted to an easier food source. So, there is no such thing as farmland birds!

I am told that there are herds of African Elephant that have 'quickly' evolved with shorter less attractive (to poacher) tusks - rubbish I would suggest; they have just been reduced to a gene pool with shorter tusks - same species, no evolution. If they met a herd with long tusks they could interbreed and produce offspring with long or short tusks (and every length in between).

Excuse my ramblings - the discussions were just adding to my confusion

 

[TLM]

There appears to have been a shift in the meaning of the words adaptation and evolution over the last twenty years or so

No shift, just people not knowing what a term means (or using something that sounds cool to them).

 

[Woody girl]

Nah, we humans are the result of interbreeding with aliens, hence why they've never found the missing link.
We are an experiment...
And not a very good one either!

 

[Poacherman]

Nah, we humans are the result of interbreeding with aliens, hence why they've never found the missing link.
We are an experiment...
And not a very good one either!

Depends how drunk I am and how attractive the female aliens are.

 

[Woody girl]

Depends how drunk I am and how attractive the female aliens are.

I don't rate the male aliens much...I'd need more than a bottle of whiskey for that malarkey!!!

 

[Bishop]

Having witnessed the feeding frenzy at my brothers place with his five kids,
there's definitely some mutant piranha DNA in the mix.

 

[Laurentius]

I am told that there are herds of African Elephant that have 'quickly' evolved with shorter less attractive (to poacher) tusks - rubbish I would suggest; they have just been reduced to a gene pool with shorter tusks - same species, no evolution. If they met a herd with long tusks they could interbreed and produce offspring with long or short tusks (and every length in between).

Excuse my ramblings - the discussions were just adding to my confusion

Isn't that how evolution works, those less suited to the environment die out taking their genes with them. Mutation occurs spontaneously over a long time and some mutations are good for survival in a given environment and some not.

 

[Broch]

And that's why I'm confused I don't think that's evolution at all; that's selective breeding. It's like saying red hens have evolved into a new species because you've killed all the white ones. A badger faced sheep is the same species as the welsh mountain - just selectively bred to have a badger face (amongst other traits ) - it's not evolved into a new species. There's no 'natural selection' involved at all.

 

[Toddy]

Apparently adaptation, I read an article about a cold weather research project, people were adapted to cold in about three weeks, one of the participants said that it was the most miserable time of his life. It also is "use it or lose it".

Cold weather is also one of the easiest way to lose weight, dress lightly and do some aerobic exercise like walking (without sweating!) 5h a day, eat as usual and lose 1kg a day. It also helps if one sleeps outside. (Tested that in Norway on a fishing trip, something of a surprise, I really did not have the need to lose weight at the time.

Been there, done that, in the UK though. I was just working hard in bitter cold weather and sleeping in a very cold medieval home....with snow blowing up from the undercroft into the room.
I lost a stone and a half (9.5kg) in three weeks, and I didn't need to lose the weight either.

I once met a very old lady on a very cold, blustery Winter's day. I said it was, "Aye, chilly", and she smiled and took my hand....her hands were hot, not just not cold, but hot. I asked her how? and she said she'd worked in the local dairy since she was a young teenager, and, "There's nae heat in a dairy". She worked in a cold dairy, her hands in cold water for over fifty years. Her hands didn't mind the weather

 

[TLM]

She worked in a cold dairy, her hands in cold water for over fifty years.

The same is known for professional fishermen, as far as I know it is only their hands that adapt.

 

[Paul_B]

That's like my dad. Whatever the weather no gloves. We had some very cold winters for the UK as a kid and his hands always looked the same whether in the warm or cold. He rarely wore hats when I was young but later on wore a flat cap. His ears never got cold neither.

I used to work on my cold weather conditioning. Including putting on winter weight a bit. I found extra half a stone meant I coped with winter kayaking dunking better and general cold too. When I didn't have it I felt the cold more. It's also an element of mental preparation too I think.

Although I've not experienced Arctic conditions so no idea how I'd cope with that. Worst very strong winds and minus 13C with windchill minutes 30C if you believe the hilltop assessor who was at the top of helvellyn a minute before us.

 

[TLM]

Worst very strong winds and minus 13C with windchill minutes 30C

Wind is bad, the lowest I have been is -40C, no wind, it wasn't really that bad, sure a lot of clothes on and some care with one's breathing but otherwise a normal day.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

I seem to remember Desmond Morris came up with this theory years ago in "the naked ape"

No, it was coined by Alister Hardy in 1960. Desmond Morris referenced it briefly in his "The Naked Ape" from 1967. Morris is the one who coined the term "aquatic ape" in that particular book.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Nope, just nope.

It's based on the premise that we have mostly fur free skins....well so do mole rats.

It's based on a lot more than that.

File:Human Aquatic Adaptations.png – Wikipedia

Naked mole rats don't have subcutaneous fat (as in blubber) for insulation. We do.

We share the vast majority of our genes with the other great apes; 98.8% iirc.
Of course the corollary is that monkeys are 98.8% human

That in no way excludes that we're the ape that ventured into shallow water to feed on seafood and evolved into the beach ape that we still are.

Anthropologists don't take the AAH theory seriously.

Because it has become an inconvenient truth for them. They didn't come up with it. They reject it like geologists rejected Alfred Wegener.

No fossil evidence,

That's not true.

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

and the lady who postulated it did so as a feminist take agin Desmond Morris' very male centred one on human development.

What can you do? Paleoanthropologists at large still think with their d(...) in the whole debate about human origin. It's still sexist as hell, the b(...) had a point.

The reality is that the things that folks comment upon as being developments because of aquatic living are actually not related. They are seperate developments and they are present in the other great apes too. They're not a result of aquatic living.

Pretty sure there's an easily absorbed big Wiki article about it.
I'll find a link, easier that quoting dozens of archaeology and anthropology texts.

You can start here:
Scars of Evolution – BBC Radio 4
The Waterside Ape – BBC Radio 4

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Flat earth! There's people who will believe anything. I knew a guy who got banned for the correct use of science, maths, physics, etc to disprove theories being discussed on the flat earth society forum. To be fair he was only trolling them. Iirc they kind of acknowledged him as they banned him.

They are absolute nutters though. If you're a logical and argumentative type looking for a bit of fun, sign up to their forum and join the discussions. Lol!

BTW I think AAH is kind of the flat earth theory for anthropologists. I wonder if there's a forum for it too?

Not analogous at all, and it never will be.

Apart from almost all Flat Earth "believers" just taking the p(...) to f(...) with the squares, Flat Earth rejects clear and irrefutable observations that fully supports the Earth being an oblate spheroid floating around the Sun.

Amongst a host of other irrefutable observations, AAH observes that extant human beings are near-furless mammals with insulating skinfat, and sensing a correlation with water, this based fully on analogies with other mammalian taxa that are demonstrably aquatic, semiaquatic or past semiaquatic.

They are not the same.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

there's a tribe that still dive s for all its food today the Moken in thailand.

There's a good handful of them in that part of the world. There are the Sama-Bajau, the Moken, the Orang Laut, the Tanka, the Urak Lawoi and the Jalia Kaibarta. And I would argue that Mediterranean and Californian spearfishers, plus the Ama in Japan and the Haenyeo in Korea count as well.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Ah, well yes, we are well equiped for coastal environments, and worldwide people have thrived there but we're not 'adapted' to live there. It's just one of the chosen habitats that we exploit.

Where would you prefer to suddenly find yourself lost after a plane crash without any tools?

Or:

Where would you actually be capable of surviving, sapiens? Right now?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

No, because our ears don't adapt. Look up exostoses ear. It's a known thing because our ears aren't meant to be submerged, and definitely not in cold water....which is anything that isn't blood heat really.

No, that's not true.

Aural exostoses (surfer’s ear) provide vital fossil evidence of an aquatic phase in Man’s early evolution
Were Neanderthals Getting Surfer’s Ear From Diving for Seafood?

 

[C_Claycomb]

@CEngelbrecht
Welcome to the forum. This is clearly a topic close to your heart, understandable since your profile lists free diving as your outdoor activity. Are you interested in other aspects of the outdoors, and bushcraft in particular, or was it just this thread that encouraged you to sign up?

We encourage new members to introduce themselves on:

Introductions & Welcomes

For new members to be made welcome and tell us about themselves.

bushcraftuk.com

All new members have their first few posts held in a queue to be manually approved before they appear on the forum. You have now made enough posts that your subsequent posts will appear immediately and give other members a chance to reply before you post again.

Best regards

Chris