Aquatic Ape Theory resurfaces.

My point was that breath holding is instinctive for most mammals, except the really dumb ones. You can't use breath holding as a reason to conclude aquatic ape theory. As for Asguard's theory about amino acids - silly. We know full well that plains-dwelling humans existed for tens of thousands of years without access to the sea, and yet they seem to have managed quite well nutritionally. Sure, occasionally they ate each other. But that's just politics. Iodine and the like are inevitably transferred into a plains ecology by nutrient migration from the sea in the tissue of one heterotherm or another. It's why deer like to eat bird heads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A key phrase. But, when both a dog and human with no learned skills are in water, the statement holds.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But, it does refute your statement.

No, babies can not automatically swim, that is BS, they will drown because they are unable to keep their nostrils above water.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But not the way humans do it, by locking the throat. That's physiologically difficult to impossible for most land mammals.

As uniquely profligate with salt as humans are - we sweat it out for chrissake, simply for lack of a proper sweat gland and the heat dissipation demands of a body covered in a layer of fat - it requires all of our considerable foraging skill, hunting prowess, and social cooperation, to keep us in decent salt balance. Goiters were not always rare, among the inland peoples, and the effects of landlocked diets on human development, including mental, have been marked enough to have become enshrined in folklore - "fish is brain food", that kind of aphorism.

But it doesn't have the implications. Humans have to practice almost anything, including their "inborn" and reflexive physical skills - a baby human can't scratch its ears or clap its hands without situational practice.

The natural walking motions and positions of most mammals will keep their heads above water - human babies that learn to swim before they can walk (the majority find it easy) are doing something unique to that situation.

There is no dividing line between the "learned" and the "natural" in humans - our nature is to find some things easier to learn than others. We're built for breath control and bouyancy and insulation in water - as well as bipedal wading, of course (about the only advantage a quadruped can initially gain by walking on its hind legs) - and behaviorally as well - we not only find swimming easy, but playing in the water really a lot of fun.

 

Seriously?

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0825_030825_carnivorousdeer.html

No shit...

 

So we're physiologically lazy. Babies come out with heads that are too big and we don't have much fur. Appendixes burst. People get hangnails. Humans a dozen different kinds of retarded. There would have to be a cladistic tree that placed us in heteroplasy with other aquatic organisms.

Oh, yes. Be afraid.

 

Some biologists I was working with once had a big buck use their mist net setup as a lunch counter - and he defended it, in the fall of the year with his horns grown. It got kind of tense, but the biologists had the advantage of numbers.

They did lose a few warblers, though. And a sapsucker, IIRC. And the net itself took a beating.

 

And the deer ate.

And Nature chuckled, in her deep leafy hole in the forest, where the voice slurred, old and muddy.

And all was well.

 

Aquatic Ape theory hasn't really resurfaced. since the conclusive disproving of Savanna theory, it is the only theory around and having the most money spent of researching it.

David Atteborough is a huge advocate of the theory and explains the evidence for it here,

w w w.

bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml

 

Did you know a newborn baby can keep itself afloat if droped into water?

of course this could just be because of the ratio of body fat to water rather than proof that we are ment to be aquatic or semi aquatic

 

That would be my bet. When they start doing an instinctual and successful dogpaddle, let me know.

 

GeoffP
"My point was that breath holding is instinctive for most mammals, except the really dumb ones."

But as Iceaura pointed out we have a dropped larynx. A feature common to marine mammals but not usually found in land mammals, including dogs.

"You can't use breath holding as a reason to conclude aquatic ape theory."

It is one of many peculiar physiological traits we have which would be useful in a semi-aquatic environment.

Q
"No, babies can not automatically swim, that is BS, they will drown because they are unable to keep their nostrils above water."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Asguard
"Did you know a newborn baby can keep itself afloat if droped into water? Ofcourse this could just be because of the ratio of body fat to water rather than proof that we are ment to be aquatic or semi aquatic"

Babies are not great swimmers but they know how to hold their breath and kick for the surface. They are also naturally buoyant. Ever wondered why human babies are so fat? Not only would this insulate a baby in water but it gives the toddler a better chance of survival if it doesn't sink like a stone. The parents might reach it before a shark or crocodile.

Other apes don't have fat babies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another physiological trait we have is bipedalism. Not like birds which have a balancing tail. Our heads are positioned directly over our spines allowing an erect posture. nly one other animal has this design. Not a mammal but a bird. A semi-aquatic bird. What a strange coincidence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oooh; problem is, I do understand the issues all too well, and a lot better than some. But no reason to get your shorts in a knot.

Silicon: a dropped larynx is, I admit, interesting. I'll look up prevalence in the rest of the Primates. But, however much better it might seem for us to have been aquatic, we have pretty strong proof of the Plains theory. I'd ascribe it to simple homoplastic convergence.

 

This is such a mind blowing and interesting subject, the more I read it, the more the pieces seem to fall into place, what needs to be finally proven false or proven is HOW and if humans can instinctively swim, perhaps it is truly learned...I mean most animals have to teach their young some things, or perhaps this instinct disappeared as humans migrated.

Regardless, I'll never approach my extreme love of seafood again, does any land animals have such a distinct taste for fish as humans do? Even though I avoid swimming, I'm not afraid of it, i want to swim, its just...a society thing, society changes the animal in us all.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ogy.html?in_article_id=562236&in_page_id=1965

However... its not just in the water that they use "tools"
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070219/full/news070219-11.html

Why would the ancient primates have to hunt? I dont see that happening as well. Living in South Africa I know we have massive lightning storms here that often set the veldt on fire. I can imagine hungry apes eating some nice cooked game from those veldt fires..