Are we biologically adapted to living in North America?

[John Cuthber]

Is there any material difference between North America (where the settlers went) and Europe (where they set out from)?

 

If not then people must be just as well (or badly) adapted to one place as to the other.

[Ophiolite]

Is there any material difference between North America (where the settlers went) and Europe (where they set out from)?

 

If not then people must be just as well (or badly) adapted to one place as to the other.

I think this is the underlying thesis of those of us who are arguing against overtone's position.

 

Professor T. Neville George, in his lectures on vertebrate palaeontology, would declare "Pigs are primitive." then, after a pause add "And so are humans." His intent was to convey the idea that humans have very few specialisations. This makes them well adapted to a wide variety of environments. It also allows them to handle changes in environment more robustly than those organisms that are specialised. Our specialisation - intelligence - extends this adaptability further, so that we can readily accommodate to the environments of a new continent.

 

Homo sapiens is biologically adapted to Planet Earth.

[swansont]

I think this is the underlying thesis of those of us who are arguing against overtone's position.

 

Professor T. Neville George, in his lectures on vertebrate palaeontology, would declare "Pigs are primitive." then, after a pause add "And so are humans." His intent was to convey the idea that humans have very few specialisations. This makes them well adapted to a wide variety of environments. It also allows them to handle changes in environment more robustly than those organisms that are specialised. Our specialisation - intelligence - extends this adaptability further, so that we can readily accommodate to the environments of a new continent.

 

Homo sapiens is biologically adapted to Planet Earth.

I think that's the salient point. It doesn't matter if some can't consume gluten or lactose, because our diet is not particularly specialized.

[chadn737]

They easily identified the disease and knew exactly how to treat it - my guess is they'd seen it before. What's your guess?

 

Scurvy was a recognized disease in numerous cultures throughout the old world, being recorded as far back as ancient Egypt. If they knew about scurvy and were writing about it in a time when writing was difficult and rare, then surely mankind has known about it for even longer. This proves that it is not something unique to North America or even Europe. You are trying to argue that the existence of knowledge of a disease in one location that has long plagued humankind world wide and in all populations is indicative that this one location is not suitable for human life. You are cherry picking your evidence.

 

 

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that in order to avoid scurvy in large areas of NA, you have to eat bark and pine needles. I am identifying the inability of humans to synthesize Vitamin C as a handicap in NA generally - as misfit biology. It is an example of an area in which biological adaptation to NA would be possible and observable - demonstration, if any were needed (and with you guys one never knows) that the lack of such adaptation is not for lack of possibility or environmental pressure.

 

First off that is false, you are confusing a treatment of the disease as normal diet. First off, we can't even arrive at a universal diet for North America, so broad and diverse are the environments. The Inuit living in the far North survived off a diet of almost entirely fish and meat and had such abundant access to sources of Vitamin D that they never had the selective pressure of skin color that existed in Europe. Ironically, that would indicate that Alaska is very suited to human life using your line of argumentation regarding the availability of nutrients. There are an abundance of traditionally grown plants and wild plants rich in vitamin C available to Native Americans dependent upon locale. blackberries, raspberries, blueberries, and even wild species of strawberry are native to North America, were a standard part of the diet, and are rich in Vitamin C.

 

 

So probably I know something you don't, right? That would be the established pattern. Try Google.

 

"Is considered"? Please. You continue to mistake your peculiar takes on vocabulary for some kind of authorless properties of the language universe, and your proper role of pay attention for one of instructing others. Who, specifically, thinks "Reds" is an offensive term? Nobody I know.

 

If you care, the Reds I know think "Native American" is offensive (the historical connotations of the word "native" are a bit raw yet) but they are used to all kinds of casual ignorance and bigotry from Whites and goofy vocabulary from the White media (including its chosen representatives of them) so it's no big deal. And of course it is completely irrelevant personal attack on this thread, but that's your long accepted MO around here, so you have nothing to worry about.

 

Overtone, it is common knowledge that "Red" is offensive language. Right now there is national outcry over the Washington Redskins, much of it coming from various Native American groups. "Reds" is simply another version of the racist redskin. You can make anecdotal claims about knowing Native Americans who consider it acceptable and the other offensive. This is the classical defense I hear many white people make regarding the use of racist jokes. They say things like "Its ok, I have black friends". However, we all know that its offensive and unacceptable and that such statements are simply excuses.

 

You can excuse yourself all you want, but to continue to use offensive terminology is to simply dig the hole deeper.

I think this is the underlying thesis of those of us who are arguing against overtone's position.

 

Exactly. North America spans the frozen North to the tropics. It has climates of every type, abundance of different game species, plant species, etc. If man evolved to live in tropical forests, we can find tropical forests. If man evolved to live in temperate zones chasing big game, we can find that too.

 

No one has presented a single biological adaptation to NA in the old sense of the term, however - you have argued that our previous adaptations to wherever we were, that also function adequately in North America if abetted by technology, are adaptations to North America; and you have argued that our cultural and technological innovations employed to prevent our biological misfittings from killing us off are themselves biological adaptations.

 

 

Our biological adaptation has been shaped in part by our cultural and technological adaptation. Preceding hominid species were using tools long before modern man evolved and when modern man did evolve, he did so in the context of a complex social and tool using environment. The evolution of our brain, our hands, and other physical aspects is driven by culture and technology. Even as recent as the development of lactose tolerance, a trait driven by one of the greatest cultural and technological adaptations of all, agriculture and the domestication of animals.

 

You can't make such simplistic divisions and ignore them. Nor can you ignore how they have allowed us to adapt to a variety of environments.

[overtone]

Is there any material difference between North America (where the settlers went) and Europe (where they set out from)?

 

If not then people must be just as well (or badly) adapted to one place as to the other.

I think this is the underlying thesis of those of us who are arguing against overtone's position.

I'm beginning to realize that. And since it makes no sense whatsoever as an "argument" against my "position", I'm a bit curious as to what's going on.

 

We did agree that loss of melanin in the skin and lactose tolerance appear to have been biological adaptations to inland Eurasia, I thought. Was I wrong?

 

What is your problem here? It's simple enough: come up with a human biological adaptation to some major and characteristic environment of NA, or stipulate that there don't appear to have been any. Then we're done. We have established the proper equivalence: if you guys all want to include legs and snowshoes as biological adaptations of humans to NA, you outnumber me and can obviously continue to do so here. But I think I can require that you be explicit about that - including the observation that we are thereby equivalently adapted to Antarctica, or the moon.

 

The separate question of what we are going to call (on this forum, the rest of the world being unaffected) the kinds of genetic inheritance of innovation we used to call biological adaptation to a particular environment or landscape, can be left to another thread if you like. I was just curious.

 

 

 

You are trying to argue that the existence of knowledge of a disease in one location that has long plagued humankind world wide and in all populations is indicative that this one location is not suitable for human life.

No, I'm not. Not even close. Almost the opposite.

 

 

 

First off that is false, you are confusing a treatment of the disease as normal diet.

No, I wasn't.

 

 

 

The Inuit living in the far North survived off a diet of almost entirely fish and meat and had such abundant access to sources of Vitamin D that they never had the selective pressure of skin color that existed in Europe. Ironically, that would indicate that Alaska is very suited to human life using your line of argumentation regarding the availability of nutrients.

My line of argument? WTF?

 

Look: do you understand that there is a difference between discovering an environment suited to an organism, and that organism adapting to a newly discovered environment - that those are in a sense opposite events, entirely separate strategies or biological approaches, not at all the same situations?

 

and that the thread is about the second one?

 

and that the thread was originally, and in all my posting still, specifically concerned with the kind of adaptation to a newly colonized environment we call "biological adaptation"?

 

There are an abundance of traditionally grown plants and wild plants rich in vitamin C available to Native Americans dependent upon locale. blackberries, raspberries, blueberries, and even wild species of strawberry are native to North America, were a standard part of the diet, and are rich in Vitamin C.

So? What's your point here?

 

(btw: berries are seasonal in NA - a quite short season, in the north. The takehome there is that human beings are not biologically well adapted to winter, the longest and dominant season, in large areas of temperate and boreal NA. Humans have no fur, no ability to hibernate, dietary requirements ill adapted to the dry and frozen landscape, etc. They ended up eating bark to avoid scurvy - if they are lucky and sophisticated).

 

 

 

Our biological adaptation has been shaped in part by our cultural and technological adaptation.

So you agree there is a distinction? That's hopeful. Baby steps.

 

 

 

Overtone, it is common knowledge that "Red" is offensive language.

No, it isn't. That's why you're going to have some difficulty answering my query above: Who does it offend?

 

I can save you some search time: it doesn't offend the people who made these movies: http://rednationfilmfestival.com/ or wrote these books: http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/red-on-red http://www.ipl.org/div/natam/bin/browse.pl/B289

 

or contributed their intellectual efforts to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_red_road or even this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=red%20people

 

btw: You know the people you are pleased to call "Native Americans"? Don't call them that to their face, in my neighborhood. Just a tip.

Edited July 22, 2014 by overtone

[iNow]

Who does it offend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6] The term has almost disappeared from common usage since the 1960s, except as a name for sports teams, although the number of teams using the name has also been in steady decline. The origin of the term is also debated, some stating that it derives from the use of "red" color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, others state that it was originally applied only to certain tribes that used red pigments to paint their skin.

 

It is argued by sociologist Irving Lewis Allen that slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics are by nature derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target.[7] However, Professor Luvell Anderson of the University of Memphis, in his paper "Slurring Words", argues that for a word to be a slur, the word must communicate ideas beyond identifying a target group, and that, slurs are offensive because the additional data contained in those words differentiates those individuals from otherwise accepted groups.[8] An example of the negative context of the term in popular culture is in "Western" movies of the 1940s to the 1960s, in which "Redskins" were often portrayed as savage enemies.

 

<...>

 

At the Center for Indigenous Peoples Studies at California State University, San Bernardino a survey has conducted of 400 individuals whose identity as Native American was verified, finding that 67% agreed with the statement that "Redskins" is offensive and racist.

[Acme]

...

(btw: berries are seasonal in NA - a quite short season, in the north. The takehome there is that human beings are not biologically well adapted to winter, the longest and dominant season, in large areas of temperate and boreal NA. Humans have no fur, no ability to hibernate, dietary requirements ill adapted to the dry and frozen landscape, etc. They ended up eating bark to avoid scurvy - if they are lucky and sophisticated).

 

....

NO; they did not 'end up' eating bark. You completely ignored my well referenced post #50 negating your earlier claim of 'bark eating'. Fruits were dried and stored for use throughout the year. Moreover fruits aren't the only source of Vitamin C, which I also documented. You continue making outlandish statements without a reference or shred of evidence.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Acme

[overtone]

http://en.wikipedia....Redskin_(slang)

The word at issue was not "redskin". That is an offensive term, and I don't use it.

 

What was the thinking that led you to post that complete irrelevancy? I'm asking because this is getting epidemic. Are you guys even reading my posts?

 

 

NO; they did not 'end up' eating bark. You completely ignored my well referenced post #50 negating your earlier claim of 'bark eating'.

I linked to one of the several specific incidents demonstrating that the human beings living around present day Quebec were familiar with scurvy, and that their remedy for it was an infusion made from the bark and needles of one specific tree and taken as a dietary supplement.

 

That was from an eyewitness account of a grateful survivor of scurvy, who owed his life to the charity and expertise of those learned and sophisticated people, who clearly knew exactly what was going on.

 

They got scurvy sometimes, obviously, and had discovered (at some cost no doubt) a remedy for it from what was available in the winter ( perhaps the berry supply and so forth occasionally ran short over the winter - would that surprise you?). The problem is that there are very few winter sources of Vitamin C in most of NA, and human beings need the stuff in their diet all year 'round - an unusual dietary requirement in a mammal, and one that reveals an area in which biological adaptation to some of the more common NA environments is in theory possible;

 

but has not (yet?) happened.

Edited July 23, 2014 by overtone

[Acme]

...

I linked to the specific incident that demonstrates that the human beings living around present day Quebec were familiar with scurvy, and that their remedy for it was an infusion made from the bark and needles of one specific tree.

That was from an eyewitness account from a grateful survivor of scurvy, who owed his life to the charity and expertise of those learned and sophisticated people, who knew their environment very well.

 

They got scurvy sometimes, and ate bark to remedy it.

An infusion is not 'eating bark'.

 

The problem is that there are very few winter sources of Vitamin C in most of NA, and human beings need the stuff in their diet - an unusual dietary requirement in a mammal, and one that reveals an area in which adaptation to some of the more common NA environments is possible. But has not (yet?) happened.

With all due respect, bullshit. Raw meat and fish, as eaten by Inuit, supply vitamin C as well as -again- the fruits and vegetables that Native Americans dried and stored.

 

Your unsupported arguments and assertions are worthless in regards to factual information and science.

[iNow]

The word at issue was not "redskin". <...> What was the thinking that led you to post that complete irrelevancy?

There is no functional difference between the terms "red," "red-indian," and "redskin." Each are equivalent, considered derogatory and offensive, and refer specifically to the tone of the skin or the wearing of war paint.

 

Calling it a "complete irrelevancy" suggests only that you're disingenuous and not approaching the discussion in good faith, a consistent trend we've seen from you across many threads.

[overtone]

There is no functional difference between the terms "red," "red-indian," and "redskin."

Really. You guys say such stupid shit with such remarkable confidence.

 

I guarantee you that if you are not careful you will discover a "functional difference" between the words "redskin" and "red" in the real world, and certainly in my geographical region of it. Where I live and work actual members of Red tribes live and work, and react to ignorant and offensive pejoratives with generally commendable but not unlimited courtesy.

 

 

 

Calling it a "complete irrelevancy" suggests only that you're disingenuous and not approaching the discussion in good faith, a consistent trend we've seen from you across many threads.

What "discussion" would that be? Nothing you seem interested in. I've been faithful to the thread topic, posting evidence and arguments as always. Try it yourself.

 

Look: you want civility, and I'm trying - but you're making it difficult. The entire discussion of the use of the term "Red" in my posts is completely irrelevant on this thread. The fact that you guys can't distinguish "red" from "redskin", while typical of the kind of stuff that sends you spla, does not excuse your failure to follow the arguments or attend to the contents of my posts, and the fact that you allow worthless crap like this to muddle these threads is not my fault - I try to ignore it, and when cornered I give it far more consideration than it deserves. What am I supposed to do?

 

 

 

An infusion is not 'eating bark'.

They used "several branches" worth of bark and needles, boiled in a large pot and the resulting soup drunk in large quantities.

 

 

With all due respect, bullshit. Raw meat and fish, as eaten by Inuit, supply vitamin C as well as -again- the fruits and vegetables that Native Americans dried and stored.

So what's the bullshit part? The Reds involved (who were not Inuit) ran out of Vitamin C often enough and severely enough to be familiar with scurvy, to even have discovered a non-obvious remedy for scurvy, namely eating soup made of a particular kind of tree bark and needles. (The inland wintering Cree ate soup made from whole fish - not cleaned, not even scaled necessarily - for the extra nutrients). Obviously humans living in these large winter afflicted expanses of NA would benefit from being able to synthesize Vitamin C - do you disagree with that? Edited July 23, 2014 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

You say that NA isn't a suitable place for people because there's not enough vitamin C then you point out that you can always obtain it from things like spruce needles.

Since people are able to make spruce tea they are able to live in NA.

 

Incidentally, I can't think of any food that's much more cliche American than pumpkin and cranberries- and they both have a fair amount of vitamin C in them.

 

Continuing to deliberately use an offensive term just makes you seem offensive.

[swansont]

 

No, it isn't.

 

Whoever is maintaining this database disagrees with you

 

http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans

They easily identified the disease and knew exactly how to treat it - my guess is they'd seen it before. What's your guess?

 

 

 

That doesn't answer the question. Europeans identified the disease, too, and it was not a problem for people on land, with access to fresh food. The problem with explorers was not identification of the problem, it was that their lifestyle was not typical. Scurvy was a problem of food availability in isolation, not of being in North America. People got in on long voyages aboard ships and on Antarctica.

[Acme]

 

An infusion is not 'eating bark'.

...

With all due respect, bullshit. Raw meat and fish, as eaten by Inuit, supply vitamin C as well as -again- the fruits and vegetables that Native Americans dried and stored.

Your unsupported arguments and assertions are worthless in regards to factual information and science.

So what's the bullshit part? The Reds involved (who were not Inuit) ran out of Vitamin C often enough and severely enough to be familiar with scurvy, to even have discovered a non-obvious remedy for scurvy, namely eating soup made of a particular kind of tree bark and needles. (The inland wintering Cree ate soup made from whole fish - not cleaned, not even scaled necessarily - for the extra nutrients). Obviously humans living in these large winter afflicted expanses of NA would benefit from being able to synthesize Vitamin C - do you disagree with that?

 

The bullshit is your mincing of words and gross over-generalizations for which you give no evidence.

You say:

 

...

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that in order to avoid scurvy in large areas of NA, you have to eat bark and pine needles. ...

...

(btw: berries are seasonal in NA - a quite short season, in the north. The takehome there is that human beings are not biologically well adapted to winter, the longest and dominant season, in large areas of temperate and boreal NA. ...

You go from 2 examples in Northern North America and extrapolate to the Vitamin C sources in 'large areas of NA' and 'temperate and boreal NA'. Not only do the 2 examples not apply in large or temperate and boreal NA, those 2 examples are not the only sources of Vitamin C in the North. You continue to ignore, and so effectively dismiss, the plants and customs that I and others have shown are and were extant in North America and utilized by the native populations over a period of at least 14,000 years.

Your opinions are unsupported and worthless. Moreover, your continued use of a term that you have been repeatedly told is offensive here can have little qualification other than you intend to provoke people. You're just a regular mensch.

[John Cuthber]

In much the same way that Overtone is correct in saying that some very northerly parts of North America are not easy places to live because they have long cold Winters, should I point out that the bottoms of deep lakes in North America are not really suitable for humans.

 

This is true no matter where on Earth you look so, by his logic, humans are not adapted to life on Earth.

 

Roughly two thirds of the Earth's surface is a challenging habitat for humans because we can't swim forever.

 

Clearly we are not built for this planet.

[overtone]

 

 

You say that NA isn't a suitable place for people

No, I don't. I don't "say" anything like that, for any reason.

 

My argument in this line is based entirely and specifically on the distinction between an organism finding a suitable environment, and making itself suitable to an environment ->biologically<-. That's central to what I'm saying here. It's repeated in my posts above. It's what's at issue in my posts. It's the OP topic, the starting point: biological adaptation to a given environment. Why is this difficult?

 

 

because there's not enough vitamin C then you point out that you can always obtain it from things like spruce needles.

The necessity of occasionally eating bark - or bark soup, if that distinction seems important to you for some reason - is here presented as evidence of deficiency in the biological adaptation of humans to NA. The only role of that observation is to establish that the lack of adaptation visible is not for lack of demand or pressure - if humans would adapt by re - acquiring the ability to synthisize Vitamin C, as almost every other mammal in NA can do, they would save themselves the affliction of scurvy and/or the necessity of finding, preparing, and eating stuff like bark soup of one particular kind occasionally. The opportunity is there. The adaptation is not. That's the only point, OK? There is room for biological adaptation among humans in NA.

 

 

 

You go from 2 examples in Northern North America and extrapolate to the Vitamin C sources in 'large areas of NA' and 'temperate and boreal NA'. Not only do the 2 examples not apply in large or temperate and boreal NA,

Yes, they do. Each of the environoments at issue are among the largest contiguous terrestrial biomes on the planet, and together cover the majority of the continent.

 

those 2 examples are not the only sources of Vitamin C in the North

So? Whatever the sources, they run out and get scurvy often enough to immediately recognize the affliction and have a standard remedy at hand that obviously took a lot of finding.

 

 

 

Scurvy was a problem of food availability in isolation, not of being in North America.

No, scurvy was a problem for the people who lived in North Ameica and had for thousands of years - they knew all about it, recognized it immediately even in a group of strangers of new physiognomy, and had even found remedies that are not exactly obvious - we don't know how long it took to discover that this particular kind of tree bark would help, but if it was trial and error on location their problems with scurvy were pretty serious.

 

 

Roughly two thirds of the Earth's surface is a challenging habitat for humans because we can't swim forever.

 

Clearly we are not built for this planet.

I am claiming we are not biologically adapted to live in the deep ocean, yes. And I am claiming that would be true even if we establish pelagic colonies and flourish thereby, using our intelligence and resourcefulness. Are you claiming different?

 

Do you guys have an example of a single human biological adaptation, something like the agreed upon melanin-reduction adaptation to inland Eurasia, to one of the major environments of NA - yes or no?

 

 

 

Whoever is maintaining this database disagrees with you

They omit "native", which is second only to "chief" as the term I have seen cause offense in common usage (nobody uses "redskin" in my neighborhood except the same people who use "nigger", and only when among their pals). To repeat - I recommend you not call the Reds who live around me "native" anything.

 

And the tens of thousands of people using the word "red" in all kinds of common, academic, and ordinary circles without giving offense - I linked above to half a dozen, from all walks of life, and of course I live in the middle of my neighbors - have a more standard, or possibly nuanced, opinion.

 

I ran through the list of "slurs" there, and found Crow, Indian, Pow Wow, etc, - those are usually not slurs either, although I suppose it would depend on the tone of voice. The Reds I work with use tribal membership to label coherent groups or known individuals, but it's completely normal to have them refer to a group of mixed or unknown tribal membership as "Indians" - Vine Deloria Jr once pointed that out while laughing at a white questioner who asked him what "Native Americans" preferred to be called, first (gently) correcting her on her mistaken impression that "Native" was a safe and inoffensive term, and then observing that "Indian" was just the English word derived from Columbus's confusion, and not an offensive slur. He said it was lucky Columbus did not think he had discovered Virginia.

[swansont]

 

The necessity of occasionally eating bark - or bark soup, if that distinction seems important to you for some reason - is here presented as evidence of deficiency in the biological adaptation of humans to NA. The only role of that observation is to establish that the lack of adaptation visible is not for lack of demand or pressure - if humans would adapt by re - acquiring the ability to synthisize Vitamin C, as almost every other mammal in NA can do, they would save themselves the affliction of scurvy and/or the necessity of finding, preparing, and eating stuff like bark soup of one particular kind occasionally. The opportunity is there. The adaptation is not. That's the only point, OK? There is room for biological adaptation among humans in NA.

 

 

You've made this bark claim multiple times with no support that I can find. You provided a link showing that it was used as medicine, not sustenance. As you point out, other mammals in NA synthesize vitamin C, so you can eat those animals, or you can eat other foods that contain it. Even if one group of people staved off scurvy with a dose of bark soup, you can't extrapolate that to it being a necessity over large swaths of the continent.

[John Cuthber]

Given the opportunity, humans have an innate tendency to eat a varied diet- a trip to the local supermarket will prove this.

I have eaten bark- specifically the variety called cinnamon and, while I have't had pine needle tea, I have drunk enough retsina to prove that people will consume these products readily, even when other foodstuffs are present.

 

 

IIRC the original "chewing gum" was beech bark.

 

So, all the claims about bark are an irrelevance- people eat it anyway.

It wouldn't take people long to discover that these materials (and some others) ward off scurvy, even though they wouldn't understand why.

 

So people are intrinsically well adapted to survive in a variety of environments.

 

On the other hand, there are no plants growing in my house, nor are there any suitable prey animals.

 

I am, it seems, not biologically adapted to live in my house.

[Ophiolite]

overtones's argument appears to boil down to this:

1. Humans adapted to specific Eurasian environments. (Or Eurasian/African)

2. When they emigrated to North America they found similar environments.

3. Their adaptations worked well in these environments.

4. But these were not the environments they had adapted to.

5. Therefore humans are not adapted to the environments of North America.

 

So, all overtone has to do is demonstrate that the definition of an environment must include its geographic location as well as details of climate, weather, topography, flora and fauna. Failure to do so should lead to closure of what is becoming a tiresome thread.

[overtone]

You've made this bark claim multiple times with no support that I can find. You provided a link showing that it was used as medicine, not sustenance.

If you have some objection to my describing the boiling of large quantities of vegetable matter in a big pot and consuming bowls of the product as "eating", then all I can say is I differ in my assessment of the uses of that word.

 

As you point out, other mammals in NA synthesize vitamin C, so you can eat those animals, or you can eat other foods that contain it

And that is completely typical of the crap you guys are posting here. Is it too much to ask that you do a minimal search in matters of which you are clearly ignorant, or take a moment to think about what you are posting, before launching these time wasting invalidities? (ad hominem arguments are invalid, and so far that's the only argument visible from anyone except ophiolite).

 

 

 

 

overtones's argument appears to boil down to this:

1. Humans adapted to specific Eurasian environments. (Or Eurasian/African)

2. When they emigrated to North America they found similar environments.

3. Their adaptations worked well in these environments.

4. But these were not the environments they had adapted to.

5. Therefore humans are not adapted to the environments of North America.

No. I am posting here in response to the OP, which in my reading (and no one has addressed this) asked whether humans had adapted, biologically, to NA in comparison or contrast to the way we had adapted biologically to "Europe or Africa". I am not arguing that humans are biologically well adapted to Eurasia, despite a couple of apparent adaptations noted - I bypassed that apparent confusion in the OP as irrelevant to the main question and not worth getting into. I simply noted that no, humans in residence in NA appear to feature no adaptations to NA comparable to even the small and few in Euroasia or the radical and numerous in their African origin.

That is, I am not stipulating that the human adaptations to Eurasia "work well" in NA, or that humans are adapted to Eurasia in any broad or general sense (they clearly are not), or that the humans emigrating to NA found (relevantly) "similar" environments (observe the wholesale changes in the landscape they found necessary for survival). I am distinguishing cultural and technological adaptation from biological, partly because the OP seems to specify that distinction and partly because it's traditional when discussing "adaptation" in this context (I just assumed) and partly because otherwise the question makes little sense.

 

So, all overtone has to do is demonstrate that the definition of an environment must include its geographic location as well as details of climate, weather, topography, flora and fauna.

Or point out that the details of climate, weather, topography, and quite dramatically the flora and fauna, of NA differ from those of Eurasia, and provide significant challenges to the biological human being. The percentage of natural or pre-human landscape in NA where a human being without a sophisticated set of tools and cultural inheritance would even survive for more than a few weeks, let alone "flourish", is small.

Edited July 29, 2014 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

If you have some objection to my describing the boiling of large quantities of vegetable matter in a big pot and consuming bowls of the product as "eating", then all I can say is I differ in my assessment of the uses of that word.

 

And that is completely typical of the crap you guys are posting here. Is it too much to ask that you do a minimal search in matters of which you are clearly ignorant, or take a moment to think about what you are posting, before launching these time wasting invalidities? (ad hominem arguments are invalid, and so far that's the only argument visible from anyone except ophiolite).

 

 

 

 

No. I am posting here in response to the OP, which in my reading (and no one has addressed this) asked whether humans had adapted, biologically, to NA in comparison or contrast to the way we had adapted biologically to "Europe or Africa". I am not arguing that humans are biologically well adapted to Eurasia, despite a couple of apparent adaptations noted - I bypassed that apparent confusion in the OP as irrelevant to the main question and not worth getting into. I simply noted that no, humans in residence in NA appear to feature no adaptations to NA comparable to even the small and few in Euroasia or the radical and numerous in their African origin.

That is, I am not stipulating that the human adaptations to Eurasia "work well" in NA, or that humans are adapted to Eurasia in any broad or general sense (they clearly are not), or that the humans emigrating to NA found (relevantly) "similar" environments (observe the wholesale changes in the landscape they found necessary for survival). I am distinguishing cultural and technological adaptation from biological, partly because the OP seems to specify that distinction and partly because it's traditional when discussing "adaptation" in this context (I just assumed) and partly because otherwise the question makes little sense.

 

Or point out that the details of climate, weather, topography, and quite dramatically the flora and fauna, of NA differ from those of Eurasia, and provide significant challenges to the biological human being. The percentage of natural or pre-human landscape in NA where a human being without a sophisticated set of tools and cultural inheritance would even survive for more than a few weeks, let alone "flourish", is small.

OK, so if I brewed up cannabis or opium and ate/ drank it you would consider them to be food.

All I can say is I differ in my assessment of the uses of that word.

 

 

Re "And that is completely typical of the crap you guys are posting here. I"

In response to "As you point out, other mammals in NA synthesize vitamin C, so you can eat those animals, or you can eat other foods that contain it"

Yes, it is typical of the crap we post.

That is to say, it is correct.

Are you saying that no north American mammal makes vitamin C or that we can't eat either them or other foodstuffs that do contain it?

Or were you trying to say that you hadn't pointed that out?

 

It hardly matters who pointed it out. There are foods present in AN that people can and do eat which contain vitamin C.

 

The OP asks "Are we adapted to...?"

Not "Have we adapted to..."

So it is puzzling that you think "the OP, which in my reading (and no one has addressed this) asked whether humans had adapted, biologically, to NA"

 

The question is plain- are we adapted to life there and the answer is equally plain- yes, otherwise we couldn't, but we do..

 

 

"The percentage of natural or pre-human landscape in NA where a human being without a sophisticated set of tools and cultural inheritance would even survive for more than a few weeks, let alone "flourish", is small." ditto anywhere else on earth, but since a defining characteristic of humans is "a sophisticated set of tools and cultural inheritance" it's silly.

It's like saying a single worker bee would die out in a flower garden so bees are not designed to exploit flowers; or that, if you took away a shark's teeth, it wouldn't be adapted for life in the oceans because it couldn't eat fish .

It wouldn't be a shark- the natural state for sharks is to have lots of teeth and the natural state for humans is to have a culture.

 

 

Fundamentally, by being supreme generalists, humans are adapted to life pretty damn near wherever they please. Some of the most extreme bits of NA are "out of bounds" but most of it is perfectly suitable territory for people.

[swansont]

And that is completely typical of the crap you guys are posting here. Is it too much to ask that you do a minimal search in matters of which you are clearly ignorant, or take a moment to think about what you are posting, before launching these time wasting invalidities? (ad hominem arguments are invalid, and so far that's the only argument visible from anyone except ophiolite).

 

I was referencing something you stated. If that's crap, well, OK. I won't disagree. I think I'm on firm ground in asserting that consuming vitamin C cures/prevents scurvy. Here is a reference that isn't you

 

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/155758.php

 

If you disagree, how about a relevant reference?

 

You might take a moment to look up ad hominem, because I don't think it means what you think it means.

[overtone]

It's like saying a single worker bee would die out in a flower garden so bees are not designed to exploit flowers; or that, if you took away a shark's teeth, it wouldn't be adapted for life in the oceans because it couldn't eat fish .

It wouldn't be a shark- the natural state for sharks is to have lots of teeth and the natural state for humans is to have a culture.

Let's get a basic down pat: Do you agree that specific cultural traits and technological skills are not biological adaptations - yes or no.

 

Fundamentally, by being supreme generalists, humans are adapted to life pretty damn near wherever they please.

Such as Antarctica, or the moon. But this is not biological adaptation, the specific topic of the OP. Humans are not biological generalists. The lack of fur, the odd dietary requirements, the need for plentiful fresh water and salt both, the long gestation and the slow running and ineffective armament and poor sense of smell, doom them in most planetary environments - biologically.

 

You might take a moment to look up ad hominem, because I don't think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means. You might take some thought for the implications of the fact it is the logical structure of so many of your replies to my posts. You aren't just posting ignorant and careless insults, misreadings and innuendos based in presumption - you're posting them as arguments.

 

Like this:

 

I was referencing something you stated. If that's crap, well, OK. I won't disagree. I think I'm on firm ground in asserting that consuming vitamin C cures/prevents scurvy. Here is a reference that isn't you

http://www.medicalne...cles/155758.php

 

If you disagree, how about a relevant reference?

This from the very person accusing me (preemptively?) of bad faith in argument. Edited July 29, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

I know exactly what it means. You might take some thought for the implications of the fact it is the logical structure of so many of your replies to my posts. You aren't just posting ignorant and careless insults, misreadings and innuendos based in presumption - you're posting them as arguments.

 

Like this: This from the very person accusing me (preemptively?) of bad faith in argument.

 

And I'm attacking your argument, not you. And the arguments/assertions are lacking. You rarely back anything up with evidence; the one scurvy citation in this thread doesn't back up your claim. Consider the possibility that "misreadings" might be because you aren't being clear.

 

Disagreeing with you is not an ad hominem, nor is pointing out flaws in your claims.

[John Cuthber]

 

Let's get a basic down pat: Do you agree that specific cultural traits and technological skills are not biological adaptations - yes or no.

 

Such as Antarctica, or the moon. But this is not biological adaptation, the specific topic of the OP. Humans are not biological generalists. The lack of fur, the odd dietary requirements, the need for plentiful fresh water and salt both, the long gestation and the slow running and ineffective armament and poor sense of smell, doom them in most planetary environments - biologically.

 

Having a big brain is down to biology.

So, the skills per se are not a biological adaptation.

But being the ape that acquires those sort of skills is a biological trait.

 

Being the animal that survives in spite of having no fur (and the other adaptations for long distance running in hot conditions) as well as perfectly normal dietary requirements for a great ape (Chimps and gorillas get scurvy too) is a biological trait; it's because we are uniquely clever.

The long gestation ties in with that (as does an even longer childhood).

The idea that we are ill armed is at odds with simple observation. Mankind can kill any other animal on earth.

 

Our powerful brain equips us to live in North America (and most other places too).

And the real killer argument is that if this "The lack of fur, the odd dietary requirements, the need for plentiful fresh water and salt both, the long gestation and the slow running and ineffective armament and poor sense of smell, doom them in most planetary environments - biologically." was true, we would all be dead. Doomed as you say, by all those traits.

We are here, there and everywhere.

 

And you still need to look up what ad hom means.

Edited July 29, 2014 by John Cuthber