Thanks for the aquatic ape bit. Never heard of it.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think I came up with it on my own one time when I used to get high.
Topic: Human Evolution (Read 3941 times)
I might add that paleontology gave the best explaination THAT South Afrtica and SOuth america once were connected 
Sure noone should never say never.. but as of now i have not seen anything useful coming from genetics aside of a-dna stuff for the past 20k years.. extend that timeframe and genetics become more and more useless and closer to esotherics.. Or to say it differently: How do you think you can extract genetic material from silicified wood or bones?
I was thinking more along the lines of endogenous viruses and their markers in junk DNA. As far as the Africa-South America connections, I learned about plate tectonics in grade school. Sure noone should never say never.. but as of now i have not seen anything useful coming from genetics aside of a-dna stuff for the past 20k years.. extend that timeframe and genetics become more and more useless and closer to esotherics.. Or to say it differently: How do you think you can extract genetic material from silicified wood or bones?
I might add that paleontology gave the best explaination THAT South Afrtica and SOuth america once were connected
Sure noone should never say never.. but as of now i have not seen anything useful coming from genetics aside of a-dna stuff for the past 20k years.. extend that timeframe and genetics become more and more useless and closer to esotherics.. Or to say it differently: How do you think you can extract genetic material from silicified wood or bones?
Sure noone should never say never.. but as of now i have not seen anything useful coming from genetics aside of a-dna stuff for the past 20k years.. extend that timeframe and genetics become more and more useless and closer to esotherics.. Or to say it differently: How do you think you can extract genetic material from silicified wood or bones?
The fossil record does not support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
The fossil record doesn't support most individual species, let alone one as recent as ours. We need to develop genetic sciences to look for patterns in evolution as well.Oh please not! I have dealt all too often with "genetic sciences" in paleontology. Take the genetic clock as an example to know how NOT to do it...
About the fossil record: If the aquatic ape theory is right then there is of course no fossil record evidence for it since fossilisation is only hard to achieve at the shore.. Also we have a rule of thumb in paleontology: "Non existence as proof is not a proof for non existence". So a LACK of support through the fossil record is no falsification of the theory at all.
The fossil record does not support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
The fossil record doesn't support most individual species, let alone one as recent as ours. We need to develop genetic sciences to look for patterns in evolution as well.Oh please not! I have dealt all too often with "genetic sciences" in paleontology. Take the genetic clock as an example to know how NOT to do it...
About the fossil record: If the aquatic ape theory is right then there is of course no fossil record evidence for it since fossilisation is only hard to achieve at the shore.. Also we have a rule of thumb in paleontology: "Non existence as proof is not a proof for non existence". So a LACK of support through the fossil record is no falsification of the theory at all.
The fossil record does not support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
The fossil record doesn't support most individual species, let alone one as recent as ours. We need to develop genetic sciences to look for patterns in evolution as well.That stuff is fascinating. The protein I study has been around for 2.1 billion years (since the first eukaryotes), we know this because it is present in yeast, plants, protozoa, animals, etc. Its original purpose seems to be stabilizing folds in cell membranes. If you trace back the history it looks like around 500 mya the gene got quadrupled in the early vertebrates, then around 450 mya, a transposon (like parasitic DNA) happened to cut out some of a sequence from a connective tissue gene and put it in the middle of this ones sequence. At the same time many other genes were also being mutated this way. Soon after this we see adaptive immune systems (antibodies, T-cells, etc) first appear, along with jaws, and increased brain size. Then an additional sequence got inserted at the beginning of one of the 4 copies sometime after primates split from rodents (100 mya). Now humans are trying to deactivate it in people with brain or spinal cord damage, since it stabilizes neural circuits...which is usually a good thing, but not so much in the context of brain damage. Nature didn't plan for a species to have the technology to keep alive so long after sustaining such injuries. So the theory is deactivation could kind of returns the brain to a younger, more plastic state thus allowing it to route around the damage.
The coolest part is you can double check all this yourself for free, or even do your own research, using BLAST.
The fossil record does not support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
The fossil record doesn't support most individual species, let alone one as recent as ours. We need to develop genetic sciences to look for patterns in evolution as well.That stuff is fascinating. The protein I study has been around for 2.1 billion years (since the first eukaryotes), we know this because it is present in yeast, plants, protozoa, animals, etc. Its original purpose seems to be stabilizing folds in cell membranes. If you trace back the history it looks like around 500 mya the gene got quadrupled in the early vertebrates, then around 450 mya, a transposon (like parasitic DNA) happened to cut out some of a sequence from a connective tissue gene and put it in the middle of this ones sequence. At the same time many other genes were also being mutated this way. Soon after this we see adaptive immune systems (antibodies, T-cells, etc) first appear, along with jaws, and increased brain size. Then an additional sequence got inserted at the beginning of one of the 4 copies sometime after primates split from rodents (100 mya). Now humans are trying to deactivate it in people with brain or spinal cord damage, since it stabilizes neural circuits...which is usually a good thing, but not so much in the context of brain damage. Nature didn't plan for a species to have the technology to keep alive so long after sustaining such injuries. So the theory is deactivation could kind of returns the brain to a younger, more plastic state thus allowing it to route around the damage.
The coolest part is you can double check all this yourself for free, or even do your own research, using BLAST.
The fossil record does not support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
The fossil record doesn't support most individual species, let alone one as recent as ours. We need to develop genetic sciences to look for patterns in evolution as well. 
I made a comment about this in another thread and I'm somewhat shocked that nobody responded specifically to my post by calling me an idiot.
I believe in evolution in itself is true as demonstrated by an overwhelming amount of evidence, including ring species. I would allow a caveat for something I would dub 'involution.' Whereas evolution assumes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states, involution would be the reverse, where evolved conscious states lead to evolved physical states. I personally believe that the simultaneous occurrence of both (i.e. evolved conscious states and evolved physical states manifest in tandem) is the most likely.
But speaking in terms of evolution, I think humans are out of place. Yes, I recognize that our genome is very highly correlated with primates' genomes. But, I can't help but think that humans might not fit in with natural selection.
Humans are weird. We're almost hairless, for example, and we are unlike any other species in the sense that we don't live in harmony in our niche. We're parasites. Yes, I know there are other parasites, but other parasites don't seem to pose a threat to virtually every living thing on this planet.
Going back to the hairless thing...
Apes, chimps, and other primates live outdoors. Their hairy coats provide them protection from the elements and give them warmth. So, why are we virtually hairless? Yes, we have hair, but not in any suitable amount to protect us from the elements.
Being virtually hairless would suggest that primates lived indoors before they lost their hair. If primates could sustain themselves indoors long enough such that they didn't need their hair to protect themselves from the elements, then the hair would lose its necessity. But, WTF? Why? It seems very implausible that a group of primates would travel to such cold environments, find and/or create shelter indoors, survive that way for so many generations and were able to sustain themselves for so long that generational intellect developed to the point where they could, for example, create fire and no longer need their hairy coats. And, if they didn't travel to such cold environments, then why would they lose their hair anyway? They'd be in warm enough environments where they didn't need to move indoors, didn't need to develop the intellect to make fire, etc.
The various Ice Ages that have occurred throughout history could be a possible explanation for this need to adapt. If the world became so cold that even primates with hairy coats were threatened by the elements, then the need to move indoors would arise. But, would they really have survived for so long (generations upon generations) that this evolved intellect would have developed anyway?
I dunno. It all seems very weird to me. Discuss. All "idiot" comments are welcome. All I know is that DNA/RNA replication is like working a copy machine. A copy machine attempts to make an identical copy, but inevitably, every 'copy' has a few noticeable changes here and there, and when you make copies of copies, and then copies of copies of copies, these changes become more apparent over time. And, it takes many, many, many generations (excluding something like a frame-shift in DNA) for radical changes to become apparent.
Don't forget that preference plays a part in evolution in the choice of a mate for example, it's highly likely that chimps behinds are hairless because of the increased sex drive derived from this by both the male and female of the species especially given increased blood flow there. I don't believe there is any reason to restrict this particular trait to the immediate desire for sex especially when combined with a greater need for communication with ever larger brains, it's easier to see how a mate or another member of the species is feeling with less hair for example blushing or the incredibly nuanced human face. I believe in evolution in itself is true as demonstrated by an overwhelming amount of evidence, including ring species. I would allow a caveat for something I would dub 'involution.' Whereas evolution assumes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states, involution would be the reverse, where evolved conscious states lead to evolved physical states. I personally believe that the simultaneous occurrence of both (i.e. evolved conscious states and evolved physical states manifest in tandem) is the most likely.
But speaking in terms of evolution, I think humans are out of place. Yes, I recognize that our genome is very highly correlated with primates' genomes. But, I can't help but think that humans might not fit in with natural selection.
Humans are weird. We're almost hairless, for example, and we are unlike any other species in the sense that we don't live in harmony in our niche. We're parasites. Yes, I know there are other parasites, but other parasites don't seem to pose a threat to virtually every living thing on this planet.
Going back to the hairless thing...
Apes, chimps, and other primates live outdoors. Their hairy coats provide them protection from the elements and give them warmth. So, why are we virtually hairless? Yes, we have hair, but not in any suitable amount to protect us from the elements.
Being virtually hairless would suggest that primates lived indoors before they lost their hair. If primates could sustain themselves indoors long enough such that they didn't need their hair to protect themselves from the elements, then the hair would lose its necessity. But, WTF? Why? It seems very implausible that a group of primates would travel to such cold environments, find and/or create shelter indoors, survive that way for so many generations and were able to sustain themselves for so long that generational intellect developed to the point where they could, for example, create fire and no longer need their hairy coats. And, if they didn't travel to such cold environments, then why would they lose their hair anyway? They'd be in warm enough environments where they didn't need to move indoors, didn't need to develop the intellect to make fire, etc.
The various Ice Ages that have occurred throughout history could be a possible explanation for this need to adapt. If the world became so cold that even primates with hairy coats were threatened by the elements, then the need to move indoors would arise. But, would they really have survived for so long (generations upon generations) that this evolved intellect would have developed anyway?
I dunno. It all seems very weird to me. Discuss. All "idiot" comments are welcome. All I know is that DNA/RNA replication is like working a copy machine. A copy machine attempts to make an identical copy, but inevitably, every 'copy' has a few noticeable changes here and there, and when you make copies of copies, and then copies of copies of copies, these changes become more apparent over time. And, it takes many, many, many generations (excluding something like a frame-shift in DNA) for radical changes to become apparent.
The fossil record does not support the aquatic ape hypothesis.
I wonder if any of the above has something to do with French women regressing back to their former Roots.
This also begs the question as to why theymos opted for French 101. Surely it wasn't to learn pickup lines.
~Cackling Bear~
This also begs the question as to why theymos opted for French 101. Surely it wasn't to learn pickup lines.
~Cackling Bear~
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Damn, you're the first person I find that knows about that theory.
I used to mention it to my friends, but after doing it 4 or 5 times and "get the look" I stopped
EDIT: And cbeast also knows it.
What I find particularly interesting in that theory is the explanation for why the human brain evolved so much.
What similarities do we share with birds? Their brains are structured completely differently from ours (although I guess there are similar circuits if I remember correctly), and their bodies... well they have wings and beaks, etc.
And to OP: It takes energy to grow hair, if it offered no advantage (wearing clothing, living indoors) it would slowly be selected out. Young mammals are mostly (all?) born hairless, so this would not even be a difficult mutation, just turn on/off some genes in skin cells to make the hair thinner in response to the same growth factors that make arms, arms and legs, legs, etc. It may have even been advantageous to go without body hair in the context of wearing animal skins as clothes since you could choose to radiate excess heat better when beneficial.
Also this made me think you would like this book: http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072
It's not so much scientific as a really interesting narrative.
edit:
Other advantages of reduced body hair:
1) Less insect infestation
2) Less time/energy spent grooming (related to 1)
3) More sensitive to tactile stimuli in areas you have thinner, less curly hair (insects again)
4) Makes it easier for humans to assess the sex of one another
Hailressness: Aquatic Ape theory.
Human migration to Europe began some 40k years ago at the end of the Weichsel glacial.. climate wasnt that bad anymore. In areas as the levant (Near east) as well as southern Spain agriculture was possible already.
So those hairless apes started migrating into the "colder" areas when they had the technology to survive there.
Problem solved
Human migration to Europe began some 40k years ago at the end of the Weichsel glacial.. climate wasnt that bad anymore. In areas as the levant (Near east) as well as southern Spain agriculture was possible already.
So those hairless apes started migrating into the "colder" areas when they had the technology to survive there.
Problem solved
Hair keeps you warm. My understanding is that humans do have the endurance and intelligence to track a gazelle, keep it running until it is worn out, then get it.
random link:
http://effectivenm.blogspot.com/2009/07/humans-runners.html
Also using clothing would have been more important than living indoors, in my opinion. Maybe I am missing something, is there a reason you think humans must have been "hairless" before developing tool use?
random link:
http://effectivenm.blogspot.com/2009/07/humans-runners.html
Also using clothing would have been more important than living indoors, in my opinion. Maybe I am missing something, is there a reason you think humans must have been "hairless" before developing tool use?
And regarding advantages of hair:
These are good points. However, this still begs the question...why hair to begin with, then? Reptiles had scales. Amphibians have smoother skin which allow for efficiency in the water. So, why did mammals have hair? If being hairless was more efficient, wouldn't that have been the next step? Clearly having hair became a dominant characteristic in primates. That characteristic "won," and it likely won for a reason.
It still seems to boil down to protection from the environment. I think this still suggests that intellect would have need to have evolved to the point where primates were capable of surviving indoors, and when hair became less of a necessity, then it lost its prominence.
Besides, humans do NOT really have the speed or endurance to catch anything faster than a rabbit with bare hands, and that's if you're very, VERY quick. I would imagine that humans did require heat dissipation to chase prey, but only when they had something like a spear to throw at it. I.e. a human would run to get close enough to its prey to get off a good shot. This still seems to mean that the evolved intellect preceded the hairlessness.
Still seems backwards to me.
These are good points. However, this still begs the question...why hair to begin with, then? Reptiles had scales. Amphibians have smoother skin which allow for efficiency in the water. So, why did mammals have hair? If being hairless was more efficient, wouldn't that have been the next step? Clearly having hair became a dominant characteristic in primates. That characteristic "won," and it likely won for a reason.
It still seems to boil down to protection from the environment. I think this still suggests that intellect would have need to have evolved to the point where primates were capable of surviving indoors, and when hair became less of a necessity, then it lost its prominence.
Besides, humans do NOT really have the speed or endurance to catch anything faster than a rabbit with bare hands, and that's if you're very, VERY quick. I would imagine that humans did require heat dissipation to chase prey, but only when they had something like a spear to throw at it. I.e. a human would run to get close enough to its prey to get off a good shot. This still seems to mean that the evolved intellect preceded the hairlessness.
Still seems backwards to me.
Regarding the aquatic ape hypothesis:
Bears seem to do very well in the water.
Bears seem to do very well in the water.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Damn, you're the first person I find that knows about that theory.
I used to mention it to my friends, but after doing it 4 or 5 times and "get the look" I stopped
EDIT: And cbeast also knows it.
What I find particularly interesting in that theory is the explanation for why the human brain evolved so much.
What similarities do we share with birds? Their brains are structured completely differently from ours (although I guess there are similar circuits if I remember correctly), and their bodies... well they have wings and beaks, etc.
And to OP: It takes energy to grow hair, if it offered no advantage (wearing clothing, living indoors) it would slowly be selected out. Young mammals are mostly (all?) born hairless, so this would not even be a difficult mutation, just turn on/off some genes in skin cells to make the hair thinner in response to the same growth factors that make arms, arms and legs, legs, etc. It may have even been advantageous to go without body hair in the context of wearing animal skins as clothes since you could choose to radiate excess heat better when beneficial.
Also this made me think you would like this book: http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072
It's not so much scientific as a really interesting narrative.
edit:
Other advantages of reduced body hair:
1) Less insect infestation
2) Less time/energy spent grooming (related to 1)
3) More sensitive to tactile stimuli in areas you have thinner, less curly hair (insects again)
4) Makes it easier for humans to assess the sex of one another
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Damn, you're the first person I find that knows about that theory.
I used to mention it to my friends, but after doing it 4 or 5 times and "get the look" I stopped
EDIT: And cbeast also knows it.
What I find particularly interesting in that theory is the explanation for why the human brain evolved so much.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Damn, you're the first person I find that knows about that theory.
I used to mention it to my friends, but after doing it 4 or 5 times and "get the look" I stopped
EDIT: And cbeast also knows it.
What I find particularly interesting in that theory is the explanation for why the human brain evolved so much.
Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Lol huh? Haven't heard that one.
Jump to: