• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

Discussion on hypothesized ancestral human cyclical ARC dive-foraging

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Guys,

I have changed the title of this thread from "Diving and Surfacing Efficiently" to "Discussion on hypothesized ancestral human cyclical ARC dive-foraging". In the moderator's opinion the title Diving and Surfacing Efficiently is misleading given the topics of discusson and the context of a freediving forum, ie. in freediving discussions, the term diving and surfacing efficiently typically refers to a freediver leaving the surface efficiently (for example a good duck dive) and returning efficiently (eg. ascent speed, releasing air etc).

Please keep to DeeperBlue's forum rules and respect the rest of the forum members.

Thanks,
Ben
I rank this post as most excellent.
 
Baby swimming before 6 months: potentially associated respiratory diseases
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Hydrogen & NO in infant GI tract (Hydrogen is lighter than water or air, increased buoyancy)
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=151757

Human infants cannot shiver or sweat effectively, but can burn their brown fat to warm up. They have skin fat envelope, white fat all around, brown fat on the back. While backfloating, the back is ballast (dense vertebrae/rib bones like keeled boat) with dense brown fat, while the buoyant belly skin fat is lightweight white fat and the ventral ribs are less dense. (OTOH piglets lack brown fat but have white fat envelope, they must expend energy shivering to warm up, obviously they don't backfloat though they have a strong diver reflex. Seals do have brown skin fat, which is enriched in blood vessels. Adult humans do have brown fat, but it not activated (self-heating) unless cooled, such as while diving to cool depths, where shivering would be maladaptive due to apneic energy cost.)
-

Nitric oxide secreted as an immune response is as free radicals and is toxic to bacteria; the mechanism for this include DNA damage and degradation of iron sulfur centers into iron ions and iron-nitrosyl compounds.[15][16][17] In response, however, many bacterial pathogens have evolved mechanisms for nitric oxide resistance.[18] Because nitric oxide might serve as an inflammometer in conditions like asthma, there has been increasing interest in the use of exhaled nitric oxide as a breath test in diseases with airway inflammation. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitric_oxide[/ame]

Some bacteria also use NO as antibiotic to defend against microbes
http://www.modernmedicine.com/moder...Article/detail/629191?contextCategoryId=40130
(This is similar to frogs which evolved resistance to poisonous larva, consume them and become poisonous.)

Another possible increased disease cost of backfloating? Colon cancer, ulcer H pylori, NO as antibiotic.
http://www.physorg.com/news151680304.html

http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/email-apnea/
People reading email suspend breathing, typical for submerged shellfish plucking, not arboreal fruit plucking.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/message/54092
People writing letters (snail-mail) follow a circadian rhythm cycle
 
Last edited:
Wet, again you are not reading what the articles acually say and distorting it to what you want them to say.

Again you are proudly displaying your ignorance and lack of interest in Diving and Surfacing efficiently, and the necessary background information required to grasp the significance of the numerous lines of evidence clearly indicating that dive-foraging-backfloating were behaviors which were adapted - evolved in human ancestors 1ma at seahores.

Nowhere in the articles is there anything mentioned that NO has any antibiotic capacities.

Nowhere in the article does it mention that 1 + 1 = 2. Both are already well known. See Wikipedia article on Nitric Oxide.

NO may have anti-inflammatory and proinflammatory effects. Nasal NO measurement may be used in the noninvasive diagnosis and monitoring of nasal disease. Nothing more.

See Wikipedia article on Nitric Oxide for correction. I hadn't expected anyone to argue such an obvious point. Prejudicial bias?

Kartagener Syndrome... Again, why are you bringing a very rare genetic disorder into the discussion and make it look like a normal disease in this discussion.

Of course I didn't. Why do you say that? It mentions Nitric Oxide functions, which I was referring to.

You are distorting and twisting factual information again to suit your predefined conclusions and leaving out all the information that does not fit your theory. Which is quite a lot lately.

Why are you misleading people?

And again, this is not about freediving or diving and surfacing efficiently (DSE).

Very few of the correspondents in this thread have shown interest in Diving and Surfacing efficiently, which is why Benny changed the title, as appropriate. My goal of course was to focus on how ancestral, modern and future divers might (have) improve(d) the efficiency, rather than focus on the effectiveness, which is far more typically discussed at Deeper Blue. Cyclical diving is a major part of that, and efficient surfacing is a major part of cyclical diving for lung breathers. Note the similarity of nasal structure in the blue whale, sea otter and human in the very first post of this thread.

Please do stick to the subject or start a new thread.

Didn't you try that already? Something about swimming pools?

Otherwise it gets very difficult for us to understand what you are trying to explain to us.

I have found it is easier to see a rainbow when one's eyes are open than when they are closed. Yet there will always be some who argue about it, rather than simply opening their eyes. I cannot explain that.
 
Last edited:
Hydrogen & NO in infant GI tract (Hydrogen is lighter than water or air, increased buoyancy)
Intestinal Hydrogen and Nitric Oxide Gases in Preterm Infants – Effects of Antibiotic Therapy
Yes, this time I have to admit you are right. The study clearly tells that they could measure increase of H2 in gastric gas to 300 ppm. And since we already know that the babies of our ancestors could not burp or fart, they were completely ballooned with gastric gas - lets say they were really incredibly inflated with 1000ml of gastric gas. 1,000ml * 300 / 1,000,000 represents 0.3 ml of hydrogen. I guess such a immense amount of hydrogen must be indeed already quite sufficient for keeping a baby from sinking.

In fact I will go even further - from the increased production of hydrogen in infants, it is quite clear that our ancestors were diving to depths greater than 1000 meters, where they could take advantage of the high hydrogen content to reduce the nitrogen narcosis, and lower the toxic PO2 level. And on surfacing, they used the hydrogen to blow into ballons made of fish bladders, and transported with them their prey to their relatives who could not dive that day (because of lack of gastric gases).
 
Ivo, I appreciate your exaggerative humor! You clearly understand the importance of positional & relative buoyancy vs ballast in a dive-foraging/backfloating species which spends much time both in seawater and ashore.

The dorsal ballast of dense occiput (rear skull boneplate) and dense backbone/ribs and femur and gluteus maximus muscles were opposed by the ventral buoyant thin facial bones, cheek fat, paranasal sinuses, GI entrapped gases (Hydrogen (the most buoyant gas known), Hydrogen sulfide, Nitric Oxide) and belly fat while backfloating in the sunwarmed water surface. The brown fat (heat burning) was located at the place most shaded from sunlight while backfloating, the dorsal upper back, near the thermically vulnerable heart and lungs, which must remain warm in an infant.

Combine that with the boat-keel shaped occiput/cranium in human ancestors 1ma for better hydrodynamics in diving and backstroke sculling, and better hydrostatic stability in backfloating, and paddle-like hands and feet, and there is little doubt when comparing the woodland chimps (which never submerge their faces) to our derived human condition, that our ancestors were efficient dive-foragers/backfloaters, and that the infants were quite comfortable in the calm sunwarmed dense seawater surface of tropical lagoons while the parent dive team alternatively submerged and ascended, vocally keeping in touch with simple unseen telecommunication of lullaby and submerged click soundings.

I did not predict that Hydrogen accumulated in the GI tract of infants, but it fits the human infant colic pattern (non-swallowed gas, over-crying in a *healthy well-fed* baby) extraordinarily well, even if only in very small quantities. Compare this to other waterside animals which swallow stones, these gastroliths increase ventral belly ballast, positionally offsetting the density of the ossified backbone, for better stability in sustained submergence/diving (crocodiles, penguins), they of course never backfloat. Tennis-ball sized stones are often found in seal stomachs as well but never in infants. Sea otters and humans OTOH carry stones (stone tools to process seafood) externally, with forelimbs, the stones can be dropped if necessary, speeding up ascent, unlike internal gastroliths.


Yes... ...gastric gases).
 
Last edited:
In fact I will go even further - from the increased production of hydrogen in infants, it is quite clear that our ancestors were diving to depths greater than 1000 meters, where they could take advantage of the high hydrogen content to reduce the nitrogen narcosis, and lower the toxic PO2 level. And on surfacing, they used the hydrogen to blow into ballons made of fish bladders, and transported with them their prey to their relatives who could not dive that day (because of lack of gastric gases).
Damn you and your sarcastic ways, mister Trux.

*goes to kitchen to get tissues to clean coffee of monitor and keyboard*
 
wet said:
See Wikipedia article on Nitric Oxide for correction. I hadn't expected anyone to argue such an obvious point.
I have to admit that I had not read enough about the use of nitric oxide [NO] as part of the human immune defence system, but I have tried to remedy that. And yes it plays an important roll and has some very interesting implications.


But in absolutely no way it plays the roll that you try to represent here! I want to bring your attention to post #230, where you say:

wet said:
This sounds like good confirmation that the post-partum maternal-infant bond was strengthened via the backfloating/reclining mother humming (singing with mouth closed, producing nasal Nitric Oxide in Paranasal sinuses) into the face of the nasal-inhaling oral-feeding infant, transmitting antibiotic NO (killing airway microbial pathogens while simultaneously increasing the social bond and smell recognition and axonal development), typical in mammals but usually thought weaker in hominoids due to decreased olfactional abilities. This correlates to facial hair loss (prevents NO diffusion) in post-pubescent pre-menopause females, plausibly non-pathological hypothryroidy, long scalp hair, infant clinging ability. It also fits with childhood mumps being correlated to post-weaned (no more direct facial NO transmission) pre-pubertal assistive dive-foraging in shallow waters, better hydrodynamic sub-mandible profile due to enlargement of the salivary parotid glands.
Yes, NO is part of the human immune defence system, but not by inhaling it! Although some interesting research is done where it might help people with asthma. Which isn’t conclusive at the moment.

To quote a part of wikipedia that you left out.
wikipedia said:
Nitric oxide is also generated by phagocytes [white blood cells] as part of the human immune response.
Which means a large part of the NO will not accumulate in the lungs or colon, but is dissolved in our body.


And now how NO is actually used in pediatric intensive care:
wikipedia said:
Nitric oxide/oxygen blends are used in critical care to promote capillary and pulmonary dilation to treat primary pulmonary hypertension in neonatal patients[27][28] post meconium aspiration and related to birth defects. These are often a last-resort gas mixture before the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nitric oxide therapy has the potential to significantly increase the quality of life and in some cases save the lives of infants at risk for pulmonary vascular disease.
In other words, as one of the last resort measures to save a child’s life or to easy its suffering, that would be fatal wasn’t it for modern medicine and also not used to kill bacteria, but to easy the breathing of the baby and as a blood vessel relaxant.
[also one of the important functions of NO, as is its function as gaseous signaling molecule (info from wikipedia)]

wet said:
I have found it is easier to see a rainbow when one's eyes are open than when they are closed. Yet there will always be some who argue about it, rather than simply opening their eyes. I cannot explain that.
Well, I try to have an open mind, but not to open, otherwise it will fall out or other people will try to fill it with all kinds of assorted vacuous crap. That is why I like a good chain of supported evidence. Like when I see a rainbow and physics and biology can explain to me why I see it as I see it. That is what rocks my world.


The fact of the matter is that this is the only forum on the internet where you are still allowed to fill a thread like this the way you do. I could find no evidence that you post this anywhere else (I googled quite a lot of the terms you use here), not even on your own page. You certainly do not post this on any science websites or in any biology forums where there are actual biologists you have to have discussions with. The proponents of the aquatic ape hypothesis do not even take you seriously. Which says quite a lot. But you are amusing in a strange sort of way. I think we should keep you on the forum as the village idiot which we can laugh about from time to time.
 
Last edited:
Which says quite a lot.

Actually lots of people talk a lot but say very little.

You seem terribly confused about this thread, sorry, I don't think I can help. I tried to make things as clear as water, but apparently you see only your own reflection in it.

Enjoy the view.
 
Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT): Sink or Swim?

This one turns all the stones...

Sebastian
[ame="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=m0t&q=%22turns+all+the+stones%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi="]Google[/ame]

[Sea otters and humans use stones (or stone-derived iron prybars) to forage shellfish. Coastal capuchin monkeys use oyster shells to pry open mangrove oysters, they also use pebbles.]

At the above site listed, Hardy's original thesis, based on Anatomist Wood-Jones observations on human skin fat resemblance to marine animal skin fat, and Hardy's own marine biology background, is considered to be so utterly insignificant compared to Morgan's tales and Moore's anti-tales, that Hardy's work is listed as 'Other'.

Other AAT/H theorists
Alister Hardy's original "Aquatic ape theory"

Whereas the front page of the website has these names respectively:
Jim Moore
Charles Darwin
Carl Sagan
Elaine Morgan
Morgan
Elaine Morgan
Darwin
Nancy Tanner
Prof. Wood Jones
Jim Moore
Jim Moore
Darwin
Jim Moore
Phil Nichols
Alex Duncan
Elaine Morgan
Carl Sagan
Morgan
Verhaegen
Morgan
Verhaegan

Hardy is nonexistent, though this site is supposedly about his thesis!

You must read all Moores' opinions, philosophies and critiques of Morgan et al until hidden near the bottom Hardy is finally mentioned:

Other AAT/H theorists
Alister Hardy

It is for this reason primarily that I ignore Moore's website, its focused more on Moore and Morgan, than on Hardy's waterside thesis; which I'd read of in polymath/designer R. Buckminsters' Fullers books before hearing of Morgans'.

I'm also not keen on Moore's description of humans as the only bipedal mammals (cf kangaroo, kangaroo rat, hopping mice, sifaka, gibbon).

But I've no qualms with your link, Moores' got interesting opinions, just no valid hypothesis AFAICT. I don't know if he's done any freediving.
 
Last edited:
Ancient shellfish foraging in Indonesia: Shore middens (At coasts, much mollusk consumption may have occurred offshore, the shells not brought to land. However in certain circumstances, it would be more efficient to carry or toss shellfish to shore (in rough/cold/freshwater, in mud-bottom shallows, shark-croc dense waters). Later development of rafts/dugout boats/baskets/bags/nets, seafood would be brought en masse ashore (industrial food production method), and larger middens would accumulate.

The shells of Trinil | john hawks weblog

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=182b6af14da0a5a977f17aa871551445

"[T]he presence of a relatively large number of only adult, large-size Pseudodon shells, excavated from a very limited area (Hauptknochenschicht in Trinil), in both the Dubois and Bandung collections, is a discrepancy in the aquatic assemblage that merits further attention for these shells.

The fact that many of the Pseudodon valves are still paired and well-preserved would suggest that the molluscs were not dead and transported by water before fossilization but were buried in live position. However, the complete absence of small, juvenile shells as well as the mixed occurrence of two different (but equally large-sized) shell forms argues against interpretation of burial of a live population (Van Benthem Jutting, 1937). Instead, the discrepancies suggest that the Pseudodon shells could have been brought together, prior to fossilization, by a size-selective collecting agent who may have used them for consumption of molluscan flesh (Joordens et al. 2009: 13).

The Elongaria assemblage from Trinil, just like Pseudodon, appears to indicate collection by a selective agent for the purpose of mollusc consumption. The Pseudodon and Elongaria assemblages from Trinil have the characteristics of shell middens (e.g., Waselkov, 1987; Rosendahl et al., 2007): large adult shells only, many complete shells, no signs of damage due to water rolling, signs of damage due to being deliberately opened, presence of human (hominin) bones in the same layer.

http://pick5.pick.uga.edu/mp/20m?ki...roscope&burl=http://htpp://microscope.mbl.edu

(Hawks) Early Pleistocene surface collections dug by vertebrate paleontologists (as opposed to archaeologists) sometimes discard or leave fish bones unidentified, and it is not always clear whether a loose association of shells would be recognized as a possible hominin-accumulated feature.

http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK_NSTL_QK11126345.aspx

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S096098220800969X
Giant clam harvesting by archaic humans at Eritrean coast.

Giant clams are among the most spectacular but also the most endangered marine invertebrates. Their large size and easy accessibility has caused overfishing and collapse of the natural stocks in many places and local extinction in some of the species [1] and [2]. The diversity of giant clams is extremely low because of reliction in this Tethyan group [3] and [4].
This species represents less than 1% of the present stocks but up to >80% of the fossil shells. The decline in proportion and shell size (20×) indicates overharvesting [8] (it only lives on the roof of tropical reefs in the
Red Sea) dating back to the early human occupation of the Red Sea >125,000 years ago [9]. This earliest depletion reported so far of a shallow-water megafaunal invertebrate has important ramifications for human dispersal out of Africa [10]. Its oversight in one of the best-investigated reef provinces [11], [12] and [13] illustrates the dearth of knowledge on marine biodiversity.

The new giant clam differs from others in the Red Sea in an early and brief reproductive period each spring, coinciding with the
seasonal plankton bloom, they report. Underwater surveys carried out in the Gulf of Aqaba and northern Red Sea revealed that the long-overlooked clam must be considered critically endangered. Only six out of a thousand live specimens the researchers observed belonged to the new species.
 
Last edited:
Nowhere in the article does it mention that 1 + 1 = 2. Both are already well known. See Wikipedia article on Nitric Oxide.



See Wikipedia article on Nitric Oxide for correction. I hadn't expected anyone to argue such an obvious point. Prejudicial bias?
Struggling to leave well enough alone here, I'm afraid. I'm just stunned that you suggest that NO is so well-known for it's antibiotic properties that it goes without saying, yet the very article you mention (on wikipedia, the source of all truth rofl) has no mention of ANY antibiotic properties AT ALL. The word isn't even mentioned in the text and all I could find with a [ame="http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=nitric+oxide+antibiotic+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a"]brief google search[/ame] was bacterium OVERCOMING antibiotic effects using NO. Once more, the only links I've visited from your posts not only fail to support your position, but in fact either don't mention anything related whatsoever or flatly contradict your statements.

I realise that no amount of evidence will sway your faith, but why persist in continued preaching to others? Can't you just feel happily superior to the rest of us because you're right and the rest of the world has it all wrong?
 
Struggling to leave well enough alone here, I'm afraid. I'm just stunned that you suggest that NO is so well-known for it's antibiotic properties that it goes without saying, yet the very article you mention (on wikipedia, the source of all truth rofl) has no mention of ANY antibiotic properties AT ALL.

"Nitric oxide secreted as an immune response is as free radicals and is toxic to bacteria" (wiki)

Do you understand what this means, chrismar? It means it is antibiotic. Some bacteria also use NO for the same reason, to defend against other microbe species.

The word isn't even mentioned in the text and all I could find with a brief google search was bacterium OVERCOMING antibiotic effects using NO.

If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that Bacteria do not overcome NO, they employ it for their own defensive purposes.

Once more, the only links I've visited from your posts not only fail to support your position, but in fact either don't mention anything related whatsoever or flatly contradict your statements.

?

I realise that no amount of evidence will sway your faith, but why persist in continued preaching to others?

?

Can't you just feel happily superior to the rest of us because you're right and the rest of the world has it all wrong?

Sad that this is entitled 'discussion'.
 
Last edited:
"Nitric oxide secreted as an immune response is as free radicals and is toxic to bacteria" (wiki)

Do you understand what this means, chrismar? It means it is antibiotic. Some bacteria also use NO for the same reason, to defend against other microbe species.
Fair enough, missed that as it doesn't use the word antibiotic and I seldom bother reading anything from Wikipedia. Could you instead explain this?
Endogenous Nitric Oxide Protects Bacteria Against a Wide Spectrum of Antibiotics -- Gusarov et al. 325 (5946): 1380 -- Science

You'll note that actual science took place, the study was published and that they found that NO actually helped REDUCE free radicals in the bacterium, preventing damage. This sort of suggests that NO is the exact opposite of an antibiotic. Perhaps you could elaborate.
 
Fair enough, missed that as it doesn't use the word antibiotic and I seldom bother reading anything from Wikipedia. Could you instead explain this?
Endogenous Nitric Oxide Protects Bacteria Against a Wide Spectrum of Antibiotics -- Gusarov et al. 325 (5946): 1380 -- Science

That is merely repeating what I'd already said. "Nitric oxide created by bacterial nitric oxide synthases (bNOS) may help protect bacteria" is not at all unexpected.

the study was published and that they found that NO actually helped REDUCE free radicals in the bacterium, preventing damage. This sort of suggests that NO is the exact opposite of an antibiotic. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Most pathogenic bacteria in humans are gram-negative organisms.
bNOS protects gram-positive bacteria and humans against gram-negative bacteria and other pathogens. This leaves humans vulnerable to a very few 'misplaced' dangerous gram-positive bacteria which are not killed by bNOS (staph, strep, anthrax, E coli IIRC) which have developed their own bNOS defense systems against gram-negative pathogens. Note that some 'dangerous' gram-positive bacteria normally live on the human body without causing harm, its only when in the wrong place in the body (wrong orifice or organ) that they become extremely dangerous because they replicate quickly and aren't affected by NO from defending phagocytes.
(Note: some of this is speculative and generalized, exceptions would be expected.10x4xn)
 
Last edited:
(* THE-ARC *): Marine-Rift Conduit

Congo Gorillas eat floating frogbit Hydrocharis for protein
Chimps eat mongongo nuts and small animals for protein
Humans eat water lily seeds & bulbs, seafood for protein
 
Last edited:
yahoogroup said:
"So we see precise parallel convergence regarding water & foraging:

benthic foraging frogs & humans lack throat sac, lack tail
surface foraging frogs & large apes have throat sac, lack tail
arboreal foraging frogs & canopy gibbons lack throat sac, lack tail

benthic foraging salamanders & monkeys lack throat sac, have tail
arboreal foraging salamanders & *monkeys lack throat sac, have tail

*eg. atelidae howler monkey.

(There are exceptions due to more recent evolutionary adaptation, the general
principle remains.)"

(* THE-ARC *): Aquatic frog of the Congo
(* THE-ARC *): Aquatic frog of the Congo
I'd better not comment on this. I should not comment on this. I am going to try not to comment on this.
 
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing

ABOUT US

ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2024 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Ocean Advocacy and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.

ADVERT