Semi Aquatic ancestor theory

[Paul_B]

Can I just say that believing what you want doesn't mean it's correct. AIUI accepted science doesn't back up AAH. Now what is accepted science? It's just a phrase I used for scientific consensus and peer reviewed evidence. AIUI AAH is about finding features of homo sapiens and arguing that they support something you believe in namely aquatic ape hypothesis. Reality they're not unique and not exclusively linked to aquatic existence.

Good luck in convincing mainstream science in this crank theory. Just be careful, bill Gates chip might be triggered if you try too hard, it'll blow your mind! Lol! I'm planning a trip to the ends of the earth to see the waterfall there and prove the earth is flat! Who's coming with me? Keep it to yourself, the lizard people are listening in! Get your tin hat on quick!

PS sorry if I come across as too dismissive. I totally believe it's possible. I live close enough to Barrow to know it's a possibility. They're one of many end of the road towns with locals looking forward to global warming so they get to use their webbed feet (alleged inbreeding is not the only cause of that).

PPS the webbed feet joke is also used for some ppl in Norfolk I believe. A bit unfair if you ask me. I did however know someone who was born with webbed feet, 6 toes on each foot and 5 fingers, 1 thumb on each hand too. She had surgery as a baby to remove the extra toes, fingers and webbing apparently and there was no sign of them when I met her. There's all sorts of mutations like those in the human species. Webbed feet is just one.

 

[Moondog55]

Having read "the Aquatic Ape" many decades ago Sarah Hrdy makes cogent arguments for a period of semi-aquatic living in the time of the great drought and the drying out of the Mediterranean sea, but her book was based on much earlier research and quoted as such in the notes and bibliography.
I particularly like the possibility of long legs being an aquatic adaption to predation by leopards and hyenas and long hair being a possible adaption to assist in the carriage of very young babies, ditto on our blubber layer
The hypothesis makes sense in light of recent genetic data that shows a bottleneck in human populations around that time; it seems we very nearly died out as a species several times over the last 100 millennia and why humans have such low genetic diversity.
BTW' it's an Hypothesis not a Theory, I know most people get it wrong but there is a definite difference in science.
There is also the possibility that our genetic inheritance is a combination of both the Savannah and the Shoreline Hypotheses and the recombination of two separate lines of adaptation before we actually separated as a species and therefore we have as a result some definite hybrid vigour before the Tambour incident where humans were once again almost wiped out in Eurasia.

 

[Toddy]

If one looks at the human cline....that's the range of humans from the tiniest pygmies to the indigenous peoples of Japan, to the native Australians to the white blonde blue eyed of N. Europe.....they are all fertile, they are all fertile with each other and successfully breed fertile offspring.
We are one species. We are one species, and, we have really good evidences that humanity has successfully bred with other 'humanities', and has done so from one end of the earth to the other. Breeding between modern and archaic human populations seems to be much more common than first suspected.

There are many reasons why a specific physical trait becomes dominant.
It might be a selective advantage in food procurement, or ease of childbirth, or it can be simple choice.
What one society finds beautiful and appealling is not always seen in that light by others.
Human choice has a huge influence.

Long legs ?.....so from the Dinca and Masai in Africa to the Dutch of the Netherlands....they are all well above the global average of 5'7" for a man.
Now, those African folks are landlocked, live on arid/semi arid lands. No water hunting, iimmc ?
The Dutch however, well, one could almost say they have somewhat of a surfeit of water
but, their height increase, the long legs, is a relatively recent phenomenon....good diet, plentiful exercise, and personal choice to marry/breed with other tall people.

The talk about human's nearly dying out....well that's disputed. Some claim that their working backwards genetic research shows that only something around 1300 individuals survived, but others say that 20,000 survived.
It seems to depend on who is funding the research tbh.....and world wide populations really ought to mean 'world wide'.

The climate change of the middle pleistocene does seem to have caused a bottleneck in human populations, but how tight was it ?
I doubt we'll ever know.
We're still slowly finding evidences that even during the depths of the ice age humans lived in Northern Europe. The ice sheets still have edges, still have 'rivers' flowing, and people are both creative with tools and clothing, and very able hunter/gatherers.

Humanity's greatest advantage is adaptability.
Specialization is for insects.

 

[Pattree]

BTW' it's an Hypothesis not a Theory, I know most people get it wrong but there is a definite difference in science.

A conjecture perhaps?

 

[Paul_B]

A making things fit without evidence supporting it conjecture perhaps?

 

[Pattree]

Research starts with conjecture (Feynman called it a guess). That it doesn’t necessarily lead anywhere useful is not a failure of the science.

The problem is one of communication. Null findings are not often widely published. We tend not to be interested in reading about what didn’t happen which is a pity. Any thinking can give rise to a new conjecture.

We may not have been aquatic but assembling the various characteristics may promote another thought.

 

[Wander]

You can't argue with those kinds of street smarts.

 

[Macaroon]

Found it! Now I’ll have to tidy my workroom again!!
So:
Alister Hardy suggested that humanity went through an interlude of aquatic behaviour rather than having an aquatic origins. A bit unlikely given the latest thinking about early hominid dispersal.

He bundled together all sorts of characteristics that he described as discriminating an aquatic human from a thoroughly terrestrial ape:
1. We’re good at swimming and diving.
2. Human infants can swim instinctively. ( On the other hand a premature baby is also very good at hanging onto a branch.)
3. Humans are the most naked of apes.
4. Our hair tracts are aquadynamic.
5. The human body is more aquadynamic as a whole.
6. We have a blubber layer not seen in other apes. (Why are you looking at me?)
7. An erect posture might have been useful standing in shoreline water.
8. Our hands and nails he describes as ideal for foraging rock pools.
9. Speech may have developed from breath control required for diving. (This has been said of whalesong.)
10. We have everso slightly webbed hands.
11. We exhibit a ”diving reflex“ which slows the heart and reduces oxygen requirement when underwater. (Do we?)
12. We have a protruding nostril shield when moving horizontally through water or diving. (You’re looking at me again!!!!)
13. We weep salty tears. (I’m told that the kidney thing isn’t sufficiently unusual among vertebrates to be useful.)
14. Somehow he suggests that a hymen is useful in water. Don’t ask me?
15. Apparently our buttocks protect our genitals. I did say, don’t ask me!

As has been pointed out, we now know that these characteristics developed at vastly different times in our evolution.

I wonder just how hungry our coast dwelling ancestor must have been to open an oyster, see what’s inside and then deliberately shove it down their neck??????

I would say I feel it is important that anthropologists (and those in Academe generally) publish these ideas so that they can be brought out into the light of day and critiqued before being carefully labelled and consigned to the archives.
No thinking should ever be hidden or destroyed.

I've just given my buttocks the sack, they've never offered protection to any other part of my anatomy; just not good enough!

 

[Pattree]

Agreed, but then I’ve spent my life covering mine in a world that seemed to revel in kicking them.

(It got so bad that I nearly hid in a lake for a while.)

 

[Toddy]

Just to add to the 'swimming' thing.

My Mum was literally an Olympic class swimmer my Dad on the other hand was a stockily built man with big heavy bones and muscles.
My Mum swam like an otter, my Dad when he carried no fat, sank like a stone unless he was actively swimming. Fastest man you ever saw getting across a swimming pool

The difference in a body floating or sinking with something on it is 5lbs.
That's all it takes to weight the body beneath the water.
Unless you're built like my Dad who just didn't float.

Me ? I'm a little fat lady these days, but I still swim like a fish and have done since infancy....and yes, my ears are damaged. You don't think about that while you're swimming with friends in every loch you camp near.

 

[Poacherman]

Found it! Now I’ll have to tidy my workroom again!!
So:
Alister Hardy suggested that humanity went through an interlude of aquatic behaviour rather than having an aquatic origins. A bit unlikely given the latest thinking about early hominid dispersal.

He bundled together all sorts of characteristics that he described as discriminating an aquatic human from a thoroughly terrestrial ape:
1. We’re good at swimming and diving.
2. Human infants can swim instinctively. ( On the other hand a premature baby is also very good at hanging onto a branch.)
3. Humans are the most naked of apes.
4. Our hair tracts are aquadynamic.
5. The human body is more aquadynamic as a whole.
6. We have a blubber layer not seen in other apes. (Why are you looking at me?)
7. An erect posture might have been useful standing in shoreline water.
8. Our hands and nails he describes as ideal for foraging rock pools.
9. Speech may have developed from breath control required for diving. (This has been said of whalesong.)
10. We have everso slightly webbed hands.
11. We exhibit a ”diving reflex“ which slows the heart and reduces oxygen requirement when underwater. (Do we?)
12. We have a protruding nostril shield when moving horizontally through water or diving. (You’re looking at me again!!!!)
13. We weep salty tears. (I’m told that the kidney thing isn’t sufficiently unusual among vertebrates to be useful.)
14. Somehow he suggests that a hymen is useful in water. Don’t ask me?
15. Apparently our buttocks protect our genitals. I did say, don’t ask me!

As has been pointed out, we now know that these characteristics developed at vastly different times in our evolution.

I wonder just how hungry our coast dwelling ancestor must have been to open an oyster, see what’s inside and then deliberately shove it down their neck??????

I would say I feel it is important that anthropologists (and those in Academe generally) publish these ideas so that they can be brought out into the light of day and critiqued before being carefully labelled and consigned to the archives.
No thinking should ever be hidden or destroyed.

Iv suggested a new theory the water foraging hypothesis lol

 

[Poacherman]

They have been, weighed, measured, and been found wanting by the scientific community in general

General 'against' arguments (not my words):

1. Lack of Fossil Evidence: One of the primary criticisms of the aquatic ape hypothesis is the absence of fossil evidence. Fossil records of hominins show terrestrial adaptations.
2. Incomplete Aquatic Traits: Hardy's theory suggests that humans have various aquatic mammals features, such as webbed fingers and subcutaneous fat. However, these features are not unique to aquatic mammals.
3. Evolutionary Mechanism: Evolutionary adaptations typically occur in response to environmental pressures, and it is unclear what selective advantages an aquatic phase would provide in this context.
4. Alternative Theories: There are alternative, more widely accepted theories that explain human evolutionary adaptations.
5. Lack of Consensus: Most paleoanthropologists and biologists prefer alternative explanations based on the available evidence and the principles of evolutionary biology.

Iv come up with a new hypothesis the water forager theory lol

 

[Poacherman]

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.

Interesting iv just been watching a doc on the bajau people and they spend up to 8 hours a day hunting underwater obv Not in 1 go.

 

[Poacherman]

Humans are the most naked of apes? Not universally so. My barber creates a hairline at both ends of my neck! I'm not alone in that.

Proboscis monkey loves water, can swim up to 20m underwater!

Prob monkeys evolved nose to cope with water u think?

 

[Toddy]

Interesting iv just been watching a doc on the bajau people and they spend up to 8 hours a day hunting underwater obv Not in 1 go.

Those are the people that deliberately rupture their eardrums though.....ye Gods how desperately hungry must you be to do that

 

[Poacherman]

Those are the people that deliberately rupture their eardrums though.....ye Gods how desperately hungry must you be to do that

They can hear perfectly well the bajau tribe have u any sources saying they have burst eardrums i v looked and carn T find any thanks.

 

[Poacherman]

Can I just say that believing what you want doesn't mean it's correct. AIUI accepted science doesn't back up AAH. Now what is accepted science? It's just a phrase I used for scientific consensus and peer reviewed evidence. AIUI AAH is about finding features of homo sapiens and arguing that they support something you believe in namely aquatic ape hypothesis. Reality they're not unique and not exclusively linked to aquatic existence.

Good luck in convincing mainstream science in this crank theory. Just be careful, bill Gates chip might be triggered if you try too hard, it'll blow your mind! Lol! I'm planning a trip to the ends of the earth to see the waterfall there and prove the earth is flat! Who's coming with me? Keep it to yourself, the lizard people are listening in! Get your tin hat on quick!

PS sorry if I come across as too dismissive. I totally believe it's possible. I live close enough to Barrow to know it's a possibility. They're one of many end of the road towns with locals looking forward to global warming so they get to use their webbed feet (alleged inbreeding is not the only cause of that).

PPS the webbed feet joke is also used for some ppl in Norfolk I believe. A bit unfair if you ask me. I did however know someone who was born with webbed feet, 6 toes on each foot and 5 fingers, 1 thumb on each hand too. She had surgery as a baby to remove the extra toes, fingers and webbing apparently and there was no sign of them when I met her. There's all sorts of mutations like those in the human species. Webbed feet is just one.

What's with Bill gates tin hats this n that there are levels to this theory some bit insane and some hold water pardon the pu n I never said anything about webbed feet ,the coast has played a large part in our ancestry as a viable food source that's a given. The whole idea off evolution is based on theory. The question is when do theories like the current theory off evolution be termed a 100% Fact I'm not dismissing the current theory by the way there's people in all types off enviroments.

 

[Pattree]

The determination to be right has caused so much error and the admission of error has led to so much that is right.

 

[Poacherman]

If one looks at the human cline....that's the range of humans from the tiniest pygmies to the indigenous peoples of Japan, to the native Australians to the white blonde blue eyed of N. Europe.....they are all fertile, they are all fertile with each other and successfully breed fertile offspring.
We are one species. We are one species, and, we have really good evidences that humanity has successfully bred with other 'humanities', and has done so from one end of the earth to the other. Breeding between modern and archaic human populations seems to be much more common than first suspected.

There are many reasons why a specific physical trait becomes dominant.
It might be a selective advantage in food procurement, or ease of childbirth, or it can be simple choice.
What one society finds beautiful and appealling is not always seen in that light by others.
Human choice has a huge influence.

Long legs ?.....so from the Dinca and Masai in Africa to the Dutch of the Netherlands....they are all well above the global average of 5'7" for a man.
Now, those African folks are landlocked, live on arid/semi arid lands. No water hunting, iimmc ?
The Dutch however, well, one could almost say they have somewhat of a surfeit of water
but, their height increase, the long legs, is a relatively recent phenomenon....good diet, plentiful exercise, and personal choice to marry/breed with other tall people.

The talk about human's nearly dying out....well that's disputed. Some claim that their working backwards genetic research shows that only something around 1300 individuals survived, but others say that 20,000 survived.
It seems to depend on who is funding the research tbh.....and world wide populations really ought to mean 'world wide'.

The climate change of the middle pleistocene does seem to have caused a bottleneck in human populations, but how tight was it ?
I doubt we'll ever know.
We're still slowly finding evidences that even during the depths of the ice age humans lived in Northern Europe. The ice sheets still have edges, still have 'rivers' flowing, and people are both creative with tools and clothing, and very able hunter/gatherers.

Humanity's greatest advantage is adaptability.
Specialization is for insects.

There's more water than u think in Tanzania my ex girlfriend is from there I lived in dar es salaam for 4 years. way back in time the landscape might have been different the Sahara wasn't always desert n so on.

 

[Poacherman]

The determination to be right has caused so much error and the admission of error has led to so much that is right.

True the question is when does a theory become a fact.