Diving & Surfacing efficiently

[Mullins]

Not sure what I'm on about? The post was pretty clear!

Will human infants, like those of chimps, die if you put them in water unaided? Yep. I didn't claim they behaved in an identical way; I suppose human infants die happier

[wet]

Originally Posted by Mullins

Not sure what I'm on about? The post was pretty clear!

Will human infants, like those of chimps, die if you put them in water unaided? Yep. I didn't claim they behaved in an identical way; I suppose human infants die happier

Sorry, seems to be some confusion here. Infant seals and sea otters also may die when unaided in water, and even newborn dolphins and manatees generally have an 'auntie'* to help them get to the surface safely, otherwise they risk drowning. Might want to review those infant swimming videos.

Paleoanthropologist John Hawks on seafood consumption by neandertals, archaic humans and Homo erectus: Neandertal diet was not dolphin-safe | john hawks weblog

(I don't see him rolling in the aisles, as he wades through the Isles.)

* Humans usually have 'assisted births' with a midwife, auntie or doctor to help, other primates, including great apes don't.

[trux]

Interesting thing about the dolphins. I assume though that Neanderthals rather found some beached dolphins and consumed them. I doubt they would be able hunting them actively in water.

[wet]

Originally Posted by trux

Interesting thing about the dolphins. I assume though that Neanderthals rather found some beached dolphins and consumed them. I doubt they would be able hunting them actively in water.

H.erectus already butchered "stranded" whales: M.Gutierrez cs.2001
"Exploitation d¹un grand cétacé au Paléolithique ancien: le site de Dungo V
à Baia Farta (Benguela, Angola)" CRAS 332:357-362

Perhaps they waited for calving season? Many cetaceans seek warm shallow lagoons for birthing. During the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, whalers sought out these coastal lagoons, since they could easily trap them in shallow waters.

The carcasses of stranded whales don't last long, but a beach side cave dwelling neandertal might be expected to detect one early enough to make use of it.

I should note that some dolphins herd schools of fish into the muddy tidal shallows of estuaries and sometimes actually leap out of the water to eat, then attempt to leap back to the water. (This also occurs among orcas during seal and penguin weaning.) If this occurred during onset of low tide, both fish and dolphins can get stranded, easy pickings for any carnivores or scavengers around the shoreline, attracted by flocks of seagulls and vultures.

I should also note that compared to true scavengers like hyenas and wolves, our stomachs are wimpy and gastrointestinal tracts are long, developed from herbi-frugivorous/omnivorous ancestors, and have a strong 'vomit reflex'; while they can consume meat already rotting due to much stronger stomach acids and faster passage through their short gastrointestinal tract. Cooking has changed this somewhat, allowing us to eat meat and fish containing tapeworms and various nasties without concern, since high temps kill them.

[Mullins]

(I don't see him rolling in the aisles, as he wades through the Isles.)

That's probably because he's talking about something completely unrelated! The scavenging of whale carcases is rather different to the idea that we grew long and skinnny in order to move more efficiently through the water. The latter is a specific claim that needs specific and relevant evidence in order to be taken seriously.

This tendency to miss the point or cite stuff that has no relevance to the points you're trying to make means it's rather difficult to respond constructively to what you say. So I'm sorry if I sound disrespectful, but reading this stuff is quite frustrating.

[wet]

Giant clams may have fed early humans - LiveScience - MSNBC.com
Giant clam harvested from offshore shoals of Red Sea

Vanguard Cave provides evidence of marine food supply (mollusks, seal, dolphin, and fish).

Whale carcass "scavenging" is speculation, dolphin meat processing is fact.

I don't know where you came up with "we grew long and skinnny in order to move more efficiently through the water" (not my claim), since neandertals were stocky and barrel-chested, and probably had a thick layer of subcutaneous fat. Being long and skinny may help in the high-speed swimming department (see Micheal Phelps at the Olympics) and for long distance beach jogging, but is not typical for slow shallow divers foraging on benthic foods, who tend to be more rounded.

[Mullins]

Are you for real?? Read the thread!

At the risk of extreme tedium....

It was Turtle's claim, which I said would have an anthropologist rolling in the aisles. You posted the John Hawkes article and claimed he was not rolling in the aisle. Despite the fact that the article was not relevant to human body shape.

[Mullins]

Originally Posted by wet

Whale carcass "scavenging" is speculation, dolphin meat processing is fact.

So you're entertaining the thought we hunted in them in the water? I can imagine we might have pounced on the occasional dolphin that strayed right into the shallows, but swimming after them is surely a bit far fetched.

[trux]

Dave (Mullins), I believe there is little bit of misunderstanding on both sides here. David D. (Wet) simply posted a new article about Neanderthals here in this thread, because I suppose he did not want to start yet another new thread about aquatic ape theory related news. I do not know why, but you took it as personal offense, and rightly considered it unrelated to your previous dispute. David D. then appropriately felt offended too by your violent reaction. I think is time to calm down. I agree with Dave M. that the arguments of the aquatic ape theorists are sometimes exaggerated, and they can be trying to explain every small detail in the way matching their agenda, but that's finally their task. The role of the scientific community and the public is then being skeptic. So far so good, and we are in our roles, but please try keeping the dispute without unnecessary emotions (that I have the feeling are starting to boil up).

PS: I do not think David D. (Wet) ever speculated Neanderthals hunted dolphins in open water - I addressed the question in my previous post, and his stand was relatively clear from his answer.

[Mullins]

Trux, his 'rolling in the aisles' reference indicated fairly clearly that he WAS citing the article with reference to the previous dispute. I certainly don't mean to be 'violent' or inflammatory but sometimes strong language is simply the most accurate.

I suppose I did take a bit of personal offence to the AA theory in general because I first found it interesting, then looked more closely and saw the unscientific rubbish that people were being expected to accept. That's why I've kept chasing this thread - well, that and the fact it's a way to occupy myself, in a masochistic sort of way, in the New Zealand winter. The water is now warming up and my position on the subject ("interesting theory, lousy elucidation") should be abundantly clear, so I'll probably end it here

[wet]

Originally Posted by Mullins

Are you for real?? Read the thread!

At the risk of extreme tedium....

It was Turtle's claim, which I said would have an anthropologist rolling in the aisles. You posted the John Hawkes [Hawks] article and claimed he was not rolling in the aisle. Despite the fact that the article was not relevant to human body shape.

Turtle: "Some physical aspects don't make much sense otherwise - our bodily hair, our reliance on bodily fat for insulation, our relatively good aquatic streamlining compared to apes..."

Nothing said about "long and skinny", just streamlining. You distorted his meaning, perhaps accidentally. Blubbery round walruses are streamlined, long and skinny ostriches are not. Gibbons are by far much longer and skinnier proportionately than humans, and they almost never get near water and are not well streamlined. Human babies are far rounder than any apes or monkeys. Underwater, various sagging fat deposits tend to be equally pressurized on all sides, unlike on dry ground where gravity pulls everything downwards, so even a diver with a beer gut tends to become more cylindrical and hydrodynamic. As far as female breasts, I think it is very likely that archaic human females had less pendulous protruding breasts, with a wider base, more like east Asian women than like African or European women, but that's just a guess.

Body shape is of course under natural selection for efficiency, those that could get food at depth would have advantages not shared by those who only beachcombed.

[Mullins]

Must.... not..... respond.....

[wet]

Originally Posted by Mullins

So you're entertaining the thought we hunted in them in the water? I can imagine we might have pounced on the occasional dolphin that strayed right into the shallows, but swimming after them is surely a bit far fetched.

Archaic Homo weren't typically prey pursuers, running or swimming after prey.
Rather they foraged for sessile foods (immobile and/or slow moving) like mollusks, fruit, herbs, coconuts and probably items they could stab or pry which could not charge them, like crustaceans. I think though that waterside ambushes were used against larger land prey (eg. deer), trapping them in water, surrounding and attacking them (NOT pursuing). The same may have been used in shallow lagoons against fish, great auks, seals and cetaceans.

[trux]

Dave, I meant the misunderstanding started a few posts above that one - at number 28 and 29. In #28, Wet posted a link to the article about Neanderthals, which indeed is related to the AA theory, and hence Wet felt it appropriate publishing it here. In #29 you attacked him telling that his presentation is lame. He was then rightly surprised and asked what you are speaking about. I was asking it myslef too, because I did not find anything so bad in the post #28 to deserve such reaction. I guess you referred to the old posts in the thread, which were couple of weeks old and hence nobody really understood the reason of you being so upset.

[Mullins]

Ahh. Yeah, I was responding to earlier posts as I hadn't read the thread for a while. It was mainly posts #23 and #24 I was raving about. Sorry about that!