Diving & Surfacing efficiently

[wet]

Originally Posted by 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.

Archaic Homo were foragers, not pursuers, whether in water or on land (we are neither cheetahs nor sharks). Ambushing was a special form of social foraging, land animals (deer, pig) came to the water to drink, were pushed deeper and surrounded and were then attacked and harvested. Inversely, aquatic animals (dolphins, auks) came to the shore shallows to breed or rest and were similarly ambushed. There was no need for or advantage in prolonged or high-speed running/swimming, as the further inland or out-to-sea the prey got, the less likely it would be captured and the more energy it would cost (and more risk) to get it and bring back the meat.

[azapa]

gosh this is a, well, strange thread..

taking a small sip of same cool aide: have you seen the latest National Geographic describing in detail the Neanderthal body? Very conical rib cage and huge lungs. they say "for hunting and stuff" (well, more eloquently) but we know better. Right?

[wet]

Originally Posted by azapa

gosh this is a, well, strange thread..

taking a small sip of same cool aide: have you seen the latest National Geographic describing in detail the Neanderthal body? Very conical rib cage and huge lungs. they say "for hunting and stuff" (well, more eloquently) but we know better. Right?

It would seem likely that they spent significant time in, on and around water.

Compare sea otter and river otter* rib skeletons: OTTERNET.COM - Skeleton
Compare H. neandertal and H. sapiens rib skeletons: (neandertal skeleton is actually shorter than shown) LiveScience.com |

Basically, H. neandertals in Europe had no crocs, but did have big cats, so they mastered the temperate waterways as divers/backfloaters/ambushers. H. sapiens had crocs and hippos and big cats, so they gradually mastered the (sub)tropical waterways with dug-out canoes, then expanded into Europe, their boats allowed fast transit and push-poling allowed them to go upstream and allowed settlements to develop since prey carcasses could be brought back in the boat rather than carried or dragged.
Both H. neandertal and H. sapiens had derived from a swimming/diving/backfloating H. erectus much earlier in an area with low croc/hippo/cat predation, perhaps at the Danakil alps of Afar or Dmanisi or Java.


* Also compare to mink skeleton (more terrestrial, lighter boned) http://www.umanitoba.ca/science/zool...s/minkskel.jpg

[turtle]

I think the frustrating thing about this thread is that mullins keeps banging on about academic standards without ever putting forward a hypothesis of his own. If you have a better idea, then present it & be productive with the criticism rather than just pretend to be shocked at the lack of academic rigour on a public internet forum. An argument isn't proved by disproving the opposite, it's proved by making good points for it.

Last forum post.

[Mullins]

Originally Posted by turtle

An argument isn't proved by disproving the opposite, it's proved by making good points for it.

Well, err, exactly. I know I've come across as pompous at times but on the whole I think my criticism has been almost entirely constructive, by pointing out what I see as the bad/false points and suggesting the theory needs to be tightened up, bigtime. It is in the 'science' section, after all. So I'm not sure why you're expecting me to provide my own hypothesis of human evolution....

In any case, I'll post a link of my own - there is some interesting stuff on this site which touches on many of the points I'd like to, but am wary of because it would take up so much space and be confusing to read.

Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim?

[wet]

Originally Posted by Mullins

Well, err, exactly. I know I've come across as pompous at times but on the whole I think my criticism has been almost entirely constructive, by pointing out what I see as the bad/false points and suggesting the theory needs to be tightened up, bigtime. It is in the 'science' section, after all. So I'm not sure why you're expecting me to provide my own hypothesis of human evolution....

In any case, I'll post a link of my own - there is some interesting stuff on this site which touches on many of the points I'd like to, but am wary of because it would take up so much space and be confusing to read.

Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim?

Does the referred site relate to the thread topic, 'Diving & Surfacing efficiently'? Please specify.

Or is it mere arguing for arguing sake
in which case it might belong in a new thread under a different topic?

[efattah]

I would consider one very clear piece of evidence.

Amongst humans, the beach is considered the best place to be. That's why waterfront property is so valued. Humans love to be next to the water, and the vast majority of humans love to be in the water at least for swimming.

Take apes and chimpanzees -- they HATE the water and will do anything to avoid it. The only exceptions are the semi-aquatic Bonobo and the Proboscis Monkey, which itself is the only really aquatic ape, and it is the only one which has a nose shaped like ours.

[Mullins]

Originally Posted by wet

Does the referred site relate to the thread topic, 'Diving & Surfacing efficiently'? Please specify.

Hehe, classic

[wet]

Originally Posted by Mullins

Hehe, classic

yep.

Now, what's the thread topic again?

[Mullins]

With respect, you weren't being serious..... were you?

In case you were: it's relevant because it covers many of the points you and others have made in this thread regarding humans' adaptation to an aquatic lifestyle of wading/swimming/diving. In fact it deals specifically with some of the key points e.g. swimming babies and the hairiness of aquatic mammals (which, I have to say, does not seem to be limited to sea lions). This subject matter remains relevant whether or not you choose to align yourself with the 'AA' theory or pursue your own.

Edit: I'm not being facetious above, I'm genuinely a bit perplexed. So don't think I'm having a go at you.

[wet]

Originally Posted by Mullins

With respect, you weren't being serious..... were you?

Regarding what exactly?

In case you were: it's relevant because it covers many of the points you and others have made in this thread regarding humans' adaptation to an aquatic lifestyle of wading/swimming/diving.

What does it say specifically about 'Diving and Surfacing efficiently'? Perhaps you found something I didn't?

In fact it deals specifically with some of the key points e.g. swimming babies and the hairiness of aquatic mammals (which, I have to say, does not seem to be limited to sea lions).

Swimming babies again? What does the site say about swimming chimps or orangs? Regarding hairlessness,
I think you mentioned 'human sized'. Most thick furred aquatics are significantly smaller than adult humans, those larger tend to be sparsely haired or non-haired.

This subject matter remains relevant whether or not you choose to align yourself with the 'AA' theory or pursue your own.

Edit: I'm not being facetious above, I'm genuinely a bit perplexed. So don't think I'm having a go at you.

I try to keep things simple and sensible. Humans swim, dive, backfloat, eat raw oysters and coconuts, enjoy time at the beach, etc. Our closest anthropoid kin don't.

[Mullins]

Wet/David, you are a truly fascinating individual. Candidate for Best Post of the Year!

[trux]

Dave (M), the website you linked is definitely interesting and I am glad there is some serious criticism of the AA theory. It can only do it well, if it has any base. I think it is important for anyone interested in the topic to read arguments of both sides, and create own opinion. Personally I tend to believe that water may have played more important role in our evolution than at apes, but probably not as important as the AA theorists claim. In any way, I think their research is very valuable even if they are not always right. At least as long as they do not falsify facts and previous researches, as the opponent site claims (but which may be exaggerated again too).

David (D), do not get upset about the criticism. And as for keeping on the topic of surfacing - that's really the last thing to complain about, because except of the very first post in this thread, nobody spoke about it here since. This thread should be actually renamed to general discussion about the AAT, which is more what it is about. In such case, criticism is certainly extremely important for every serious theory, and hence belongs here.

PS: David (Mullins), could you please check you Private Messages? I've sent you a PM a few days ago (unrelated to this topic), and suppose you missed it. Just would like to know what your answer is, regardless what your reply.

[wet]

(I deleted my blustery comment)
===========================


I really wanted to focus only on 'efficiency in dive foraging in humans (ancestors)'. There are many terrestrial animals which swim faster (more effectively) than humans, but they avoid submerging their heads, they are basically running through the water on four legs, are not very efficient at it and tend to tire out quickly. Among the many semi-aquatic animals, only the sea otter and marine otter will spend much time backfloating, most others return to the shore (or iceberg or log) to rest. Humans have the option of backfloating to rest, expending very little energy. This significantly raises the total efficiency of the time spent in water, with no need to repeatedly travel back and forth to the seashore to rest and revitalize, expending time and energy. I don't think they dove-foraged in heavy surf, during windy stormy weather, or at night; and during the long rainy seasons, they probably sought food inland or migrated along the coasts to find better conditions.

So, when I entitled the thread "Diving and Surfacing efficiently", well, that's what I meant, as part of the sustained ability to gather and consume nutritious raw foods on a daily basis along the coastal shores, without much rainforest fruit tree climbing or chasing prey around on land or in water.

[Jouskari]

Wet, deleted my post. Didn´t mean to break your spirit. :/

Start a new one, with a new topic the AAT is still a interesting theory.