Are we biologically adapted to living in North America?

[chadn737]

In the first place, the usual implication of biological adaptation to an environment is a change specific to that particular environment - rabbits are not usually described as being biologically adapted to Australia, for example, but rather Australia as being vulnerable (insufficiently adapted) to rabbits.

 

In the second place, specifically biological adaptation is usually taken to differentiate certain kinds of adaptations in humans from the cultural ones that have led to so much flourishing of humans. Fire and clothing, for example, without which most of North America would be uninhabitable by humans, are not usually listed among the biological adaptations of humans. Adult lactose metabolism capability is, along with sickle cell genetics and loss of melanin in the skin of midcontinental northerners and a couple of others - but none of these are specific to North American aboriginals.

 

And so I know of none. As far as I can recall, there are no biological adaptations of the human species to North America. One might make an argument for the immune system simplicity - a cost saving that turned into a nearly fatal vulnerability when Europeans brought disease - but what else? Salt conservation and fat storage of sugar calories in SW aboriginals, maybe, but it's a very short list even of possibilities.

 

 

As Ophiolite has aptly pointed out, America is not so radical, but rather possessing many environments that are highly similar to that of the Old World. Humans would no more have survived in the cold of Northern Europe or Asia were it not for our cultural adaptations than they would to that of America. Identifying anything other than more simplistic adaptations is difficult, regardless of the trait or species and has only been able to take off in recent years. Where there are more easily measured and clear differences, however, we often can detect selection. For instance, it is clear that there has been selection in natives of the Andes Mtns for survival at high altitude, much like in Tibet. Despite the fact that these populations have only lived in the Andes for ~10,000 years, we can detect the signatures of selection. A clear case of adaptation to a local American environment. While this example is clearly from South America, the environment is far more radical and dissimilar to most than what North America in general is to the rest of human habitation.

 

Your argument seems to be mired in a mindset of specialization, whereas humans are clearly a species that has evolved to be generalists in nearly all senses of the world. We are completely omnivorous and have adapted to thrive on any range of foods. It makes little sense then to speak of humans as being adapted to a particular locale like how a cave fish is adapted only to live in a cave. While we originate from a much more central location, human history is one of constant migration and admixture...hence why the genetic structure of our populations is clinal.

 

Nor can we discount cultural adaptation, which is very much a byproduct of the evolution of our brain and behavior. It is not without reason that at least 40 some years ago people like Richard Dawkins were speaking of society and culture as extended phenotypes. If the history of invasive species and attempts at introducing species has taught us anything, it is NOT the case that an environment or place like Australia is "not adapted to species X", whatever that means. If this were the case, then we should expect the successful introduction of any non-native species. That certainly is not the case. Rather it seems that only some species are able to successfully and rapidly colonize new regions. Oftentimes these places are similar in some respect to the environment in which they evolved, thus making colonization possible. These species often exhibit traits that make them particularly successful at spreading and colonizing new locales.

[overtone]

Let us suppose that your statement is completely true.

As it contains the word "usually", that is a pretty safe assumption.

 

Let us suppose that less common implications are unacceptable.

We would accept any implications suitable for dealing with the OP question, of course.

 

Let us adhere to the strictest of definitions of adaptation. In such a case, and applying similar rigour, there is no way in which you can describe North America as an environment.

- =- - -

Where there are more easily measured and clear differences, however, we often can detect selection. For instance, it is clear that there has been selection in natives of the Andes Mtns for survival at high altitude, much like in Tibet. Despite the fact that these populations have only lived in the Andes for ~10,000 years, we can detect the signatures of selection. A clear case of adaptation to a local American environment. While this example is clearly from South America, the environment is far more radical and dissimilar to most than what North America in general is to the rest of human habitation.

So we are agreed, completely, that human beings resident in North America apparently display no biological adaptations to the environment (or any of the environments, if we really want to correct the OP) of that continent in particular?

 

 

 

Your argument seems to be mired in a mindset of specialization, whereas humans are clearly a species that has evolved to be generalists in nearly all senses of the world. We are completely omnivorous and have adapted to thrive on any range of foods.

We require various vitamins in our diet, in particular vitamin C (an unusual vulnerability for a mammal) and vitamin D in high latitudes of low sun, and an unusual amount of salt, water, iodine, and so forth.

 

Clearly our dietary requirements are poorly matched to the natural environments of continental North America, and there is quite a bit of room for biological adaptation in that arena. We would not be shocked to find that large land mammals biologically adapted to one or more of the common and widespread environments of North America, including the omnivores, manufactured their own vitamins C and D, and conserved salt. For example.

Edited July 16, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

So we are agreed, completely, that human beings resident in North America apparently display no biological adaptations to the environment (or any of the environments, if we really want to correct the OP) of that continent in particular?

 

Um no. That is not at all what I said:

 

"Identifying anything other than more simplistic adaptations is difficult, regardless of the trait or species and has only been able to take off in recent years. Where there are more easily measured and clear differences, however, we often can detect selection. For instance, it is clear that there has been selection in natives of the Andes Mtns for survival at high altitude, much like in Tibet. Despite the fact that these populations have only lived in the Andes for ~10,000 years, we can detect the signatures of selection."

 

I then give an example of selection and adaptation to a specific climate of South America, which was settled much later than North America. The only conclusion that one can derive from the proper context of my previous post is that we have been historically limited by technology and data and so we simply do not know.

 

We require various vitamins in our diet, in particular vitamin C (an unusual vulnerability for a mammal) and vitamin D in high latitudes of low sun, and an unusual amount of salt, water, iodine, and so forth.

Clearly our dietary requirements are poorly matched to the natural environments of continental North America, and there is quite a bit of room for biological adaptation in that arena. We would not be shocked to find that large land mammals biologically adapted to one or more of the common and widespread environments of North America, including the omnivores, manufactured their own vitamins C and D, and conserved salt. For example.

 

 

These are basic nutrients required by many, if not most species. Our particular need for vitamin C comes from having lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C, but which we have found in sufficient quantities from many different sources. Same with all these. None of these can be said to be of particular lack in North America as a whole. What you are trying to argue here makes no sense. Salt, water, Vitamin C, Vitamin D are no more lacking in North America than they are anywhere else.

[John Cuthber]

"Are we biologically adapted to living in North America?"

Are we bulletproof?

[CharonY]

Or to reiterate a point that Ophiolite made, if humans were not adapted to the situation found in the various geographic locations, we would not find humans there.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

overtone,

You need to start learning from past mistakes. Not a single one of your posts has contained even a link to Wikipedia let alone a valid scientific source for your claims. If you're not going to bother backing up your so-called facts with citations, kindly stop presenting your opinions as such. It constitutes soap boxing and will not be tolerated (as surely by now you should know).

[Ophiolite]

So we are agreed, completely, that human beings resident in North America apparently display no biological adaptations to the environment (or any of the environments, if we really want to correct the OP) of that continent in particular?

Well, no. We are not agreed. By chance, I am in North America at the moment. Despite heavy rain north of Houston all I can see around me is land. I've taken a look at persons as they run from their cars to one of two restaurants, or to an adjacent hotel. I've noticed that, so far, all of them have legs. These seem to be very effective for manouvering on a terrestrial environment. I saw no peculiarity of the American topography that was presenting a challenge to any of these legs. I therefore conclude that, as far as locomotion is concerned, humans are well adapted to this part of North America

Edited July 17, 2014 by Ophiolite

[overtone]

I've noticed that, so far, all of them have legs. These seem to be very effective for manouvering on a terrestrial environment. I saw no peculiarity of the American topography that was presenting a challenge to any of these legs. I therefore conclude that, as far as locomotion is concerned, humans are well adapted to this part of North America

That was not my question, or the OP as far as I can tell.

 

In response to my query, you would be claiming that the terrestrial environment around Houston was particular to to North America.

 

This was the OP:

 

My questions being.. Are we adapted to the climate, vegetation, air quality, etc. the same way we would be to the other continents?

 

I read it as asking whether we had adapted to North America. They hadn't - as the example of you demonstrates, their adaptations were to other places in times long past, and their suitability in North America a happy circumstance they have taken advantage of.

 

Occupying a place suited to one's previous adaptations is a kind of opposite to adapting to a place. The OP as I read it did not ask whether we we had chosen a place (NA) we were adapted to, but whether we had adapted to the place we had chosen in the way we presumably had adapted to "Africa" - that is, I read it as presuming we had adapted to the environments common to the Africa and Asia mentioned, rather than choosing them to match prior adaptations. I doubt that, but it's the premise of the question. Do you quarrel with that reading of the OP?

 

 

 

What you are trying to argue here makes no sense. Salt, water, Vitamin C, Vitamin D are no more lacking in North America than they are anywhere else.

They are obviously lacking in most North American environments compared to the environment our metabolic requirements originally adapted to. In the same sense that posters here present the presence of legs as adaptations that happen to fit most local environments of North America, I present the inability to synthesize Vitamn C, the need for sunlight to synthisize Vitamin D, and so forth, as adaptations that happen to not fit.

 

Just to mention one example of an area of biology that offers room for adaptations to North America, in particular, in contrast to wherever we had adapted to, which was obviously somewhere else.

 

 

 

You need to start learning from past mistakes. Not a single one of your posts has contained even a link to Wikipedia let alone a valid scientific source for your claims.

I haven't made any such claims as need a source. I haven't made any such mistakes in the past, either.

 

Look, the last time you launched this routine my entire argument was based on the absence of relevant scientific research and sources, my central claim was the significance of the fact that they did not exist, and you demanded that I produce some and link to them to support my claims. I'm without recourse - there's no real point in posting those notes.

Edited July 17, 2014 by overtone

[overtone]

The only conclusion that one can derive from the proper context of my previous post is that we have been historically limited by technology and data and so we simply do not know.

Agreed. Now all we have to do is establish that the OP referred to aboriginal NA colonizers, and we're set. I don't know of any NA adaptations (a couple of possibilities mentioned above in my posts are not sure), and you don't (none proposed, even), so we don't.

 

Regarding the OP, then, and modifying the usual implication in this context of "adapted to" to include "matched to pre-existing adaptations" or something similar, we would compare the previous environment that we specifically adapted to, biologically I think is specified(?), with NA environment(s) and attempt to discover any major differences. If there are any, and they give us significant trouble beyond what we experienced in the original adapted to environment(s), then we would not be as well adapted to NA, and the answer would be "no". Otherwise, "yes".

 

- - - -

 

I did, upon second thought (no editing privileges remain) think of a possible response to the demand that I post something that needs a source, and then provide a link to the source,

 

similar to the posts of chad above, a commendably consistent poster of what hypervalent iodine recognizes as proper scientific links and the like :

 

Frisbee was invented in NA, and we are possessed with opposable thumbs and throwing machinery - obvious adaptations to playing Frisbee, in the sense common above and acceptable to various as scientific. But we are not that great at it - we fail to properly throw and catch Frisbees, often - so clearly the adaptation is in an early stage, recent. So there's something, that such perceptive posters as hypervalent iodine and chad and the like will surely find acceptable as evidence for whatever argument they think I'm making. Here's a source for all those claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbee

 

Whoops, I suddenly realized that one of my claims - that we often fail to throw and catch Frisbees properly - was not adequately sourced there (it was supposed to be an inference from the displayed existence of low-level competitions and play events involving such failures, a reprehensibly unscientific presumption, my apologies to all the offended).

Here: http://www.wikihow.com/Throw-a-Frisbee

 

For some, learning how to throw a Frisbee may seem harder than it looks.

and from the hyperlink "How To Pancake Catch - - - - "

 

Wanting to join an Ultimate Frisbee team, but not very good at catching the Frisbee?

Edited July 17, 2014 by overtone

[chadn737]

They are obviously lacking in most North American environments compared to the environment our metabolic requirements originally adapted to. In the same sense that posters here present the presence of legs as adaptations that happen to fit most local environments of North America, I present the inability to synthesize Vitamn C, the need for sunlight to synthisize Vitamin D, and so forth, as adaptations that happen to not fit.

 

This is complete unsupported nonsense. Are you saying that sunlight is not available in North America? However do hundreds of millions of people live on this continent without massive Vitamin D supplements? Never mind that the Inuit, with a diet of vast amounts of fish obtain sufficient vitamin D from the frozen North. The temperate climates of North America provide similar amounts of sunshine to those of Europe and Asia, environments to which people are well adapted to receiving plenty of Vitamin D. In the Southern parts of the continent, which are tropical or nearly so, there is sun galore.

 

As for vitamin C, we lost this ability long ago, even as other species living in continental Africa retained it. Yet we have obtained sufficient vitamin C throughout Europe and Asia, lands which we also evolved to adapt to. North America is not deficient in vitamin C providing plants. There are plenty and Native Americans were not exactly known to die of scurvy.

 

Seriously, where the heck did you come up with this idea?

 

I haven't made any such claims as need a source. I haven't made any such mistakes in the past, either.

 

 

REALLY? How about the claim that North America is lacking in Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Salt, and even WATER. Not only are these claims ridiculous, but they are the sort of ridiculousness that demands support.

Agreed. Now all we have to do is establish that the OP referred to aboriginal NA colonizers, and we're set. I don't know of any NA adaptations (a couple of possibilities mentioned above in my posts are not sure), and you don't (none proposed, even), so we don't.

 

Regarding the OP, then, and modifying the usual implication in this context of "adapted to" to include "matched to pre-existing adaptations" or something similar, we would compare the previous environment that we specifically adapted to, biologically I think is specified(?), with NA environment(s) and attempt to discover any major differences. If there are any, and they give us significant trouble beyond what we experienced in the original adapted to environment(s), then we would not be as well adapted to NA, and the answer would be "no". Otherwise, "yes".

 

- - - -

 

I did, upon second thought (no editing privileges remain) think of a possible response to the demand that I post something that needs a source, and then provide a link to the source,

 

similar to the posts of chad above, a commendably consistent poster of what hypervalent iodine recognizes as proper scientific links and the like :

 

Frisbee was invented in NA, and we are possessed with opposable thumbs and throwing machinery - obvious adaptations to playing Frisbee, in the sense common above and acceptable to various as scientific. But we are not that great at it - we fail to properly throw and catch Frisbees, often - so clearly the adaptation is in an early stage, recent. So there's something, that such perceptive posters as hypervalent iodine and chad and the like will surely find acceptable as evidence for whatever argument they think I'm making. Here's a source for all those claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisbee

 

Whoops, I suddenly realized that one of my claims - that we often fail to throw and catch Frisbees properly - was not adequately sourced there (it was supposed to be an inference from the displayed existence of low-level competitions and play events involving such failures, a reprehensibly unscientific presumption, my apologies to all the offended).

Here: http://www.wikihow.com/Throw-a-Frisbee

 

and from the hyperlink "How To Pancake Catch - - - - "

 

 

Hahaha. I enjoy you Overtone, not for your humor, which is decidedly lacking, but for the shear obstinate refusal to provide any scientific credibility to any claim you make. You are a champion of pseudoscience.

Edited July 17, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

 

 

This is complete unsupported nonsense

- - - -

REALLY? How about the claim that North America is lacking in Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Salt, and even WATER. Not only are these claims ridiculous, but they are the sort of ridiculousness that demands support

- - - -

Seriously, where the heck did you come up with this idea?

I made no such claims.

 

And you have no excuse for asserting I did - you are not furthering any argument, supporting any thesis, or dealing with the thread topic in any way.

 

Even apparent attempts to argue a thesis or proposal ostensibly relevant emerge like this:

 

- - - The temperate climates of North America provide similar amounts of sunshine to those of Europe and Asia, environments to which people are well adapted to receiving plenty of Vitamin D. In the Southern parts of the continent, which are tropical or nearly so, there is sun galore.

 

As for vitamin C, we lost this ability long ago, even as other species living in continental Africa retained it. Yet we have obtained sufficient vitamin C throughout Europe and Asia, lands which we also evolved to adapt to. North America is not deficient in vitamin C providing plants. There are plenty and Native Americans were not exactly known to die of scurvy.

What are you trying to argue there? Do you yourself have any idea why you posted that in this thread?

 

btw: I recently ran across the famous video of Neil Armstrong and Co. locomoting bipedally on the Moon. It occurs to me to wonder how many posters here would accept that event as evidence that humans are adapted to the common environments found on the moon. If we were living in a moon colony, and someone posted the question of whether we were adapted to the moon as we were adapted to the environment of our African origins, biologically, how many here would say yes?

[chadn737]

I made no such claims.

 

And you have no excuse for asserting I did - you are not furthering any argument, supporting any thesis, or dealing with the thread topic in any way.

 

The hell you did:

 

Overtone:

 

We require various vitamins in our diet, in particular vitamin C (an unusual vulnerability for a mammal) and vitamin D in high latitudes of low sun, and an unusual amount of salt, water, iodine, and so forth.

Clearly our dietary requirements are poorly matched to the natural environments of continental North America, and there is quite a bit of room for biological adaptation in that arena. We would not be shocked to find that large land mammals biologically adapted to one or more of the common and widespread environments of North America, including the omnivores, manufactured their own vitamins C and D, and conserved salt. For example.

 

You state right there that our need of Vitamin D, C, salt, water, iodine, etc are poorly matched to continental North America. The only reason they could be poorly matched is if these were somehow lacking in the environment.

And then earlier you restated it, even though you edited your post and erased the claim. Fortunately, at that point I had already replied, so I can still quote exactly what you said:

They are obviously lacking in most North American environments compared to the environment our metabolic requirements originally adapted to. In the same sense that posters here present the presence of legs as adaptations that happen to fit most local environments of North America, I present the inability to synthesize Vitamn C, the need for sunlight to synthisize Vitamin D, and so forth, as adaptations that happen to not fit.

So you made this exact claim in two posts, one of which you edited after the fact to hide, the other is still very much in existence so that we can all see that you did indeed make these claims.

 

What are you trying to argue there? Do you yourself have any idea why you posted that in this thread?

 

Its obvious what I am arguing. You made the claim that North America is somehow lacking in what we need metabolically. When challenged on the fact, you have tried to hide it and claim otherwise.

Edited July 17, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

You state right there that our need of Vitamin D, C, salt, water, iodine, etc are poorly matched to continental North America.

Yep.

 

The only reason they could be poorly matched is if these were somehow lacking in the environment.

The common environments dominating most of the continent, yes. And don't forget sunlight - Canada and Alaska together are more than half the continent, with inland areas even farther from the sea than the region that bred de-melanized skin into some the species.

 

So you made this exact claim in two posts, one of which you edited after the fact to hide, the other is still very much in existence so that we can all see that you did indeed make these claims.

That depends on which claims you are talking about - mine, as quoted, or whatever you replied to like this:

 

Are you saying that sunlight is not available in North America? However do hundreds of millions of people live on this continent without massive Vitamin D supplements? Never mind that the Inuit, with a diet of vast amounts of fish obtain sufficient vitamin D from the frozen North. The temperate climates of North America provide similar amounts of sunshine to those of Europe and Asia, environments to which people are well adapted to receiving plenty of Vitamin D. In the Southern parts of the continent, which are tropical or nearly so, there is sun galore.

 

As for vitamin C, we lost this ability long ago, even as other species living in continental Africa retained it. Yet we have obtained sufficient vitamin C throughout Europe and Asia, lands which we also evolved to adapt to. North America is not deficient in vitamin C providing plants. There are plenty and Native Americans were not exactly known to die of scurvy.

Which ones are you now attributing to me? I'd like to stick with the quoted stuff, personally.

 

 

 

Its obvious what I am arguing.

No, it isn't. Try laying it out formally, with premises and a conclusion, and see what you end up with.

 

You made the claim that North America is somehow lacking in what we need metabolically. When challenged on the fact, you have tried to hide it and claim otherwise.

I am still observing - and I believe that it's common knowledge - that human beings cannot survive in the common environments of NA without significant and sophisticated cultural knowledge and techniques to cover their biologically misfit status. We are obviously adapted to sunnier, warmer, wetter, more fruit-rich, more easily salt-provisioning, etc etc, environments than the boreal forest, steppe, montane, temperate forest, desert, tundra, and so forth, that cover this continent. We need clothes, shoes, fire, special dietary innovations (we not only search out and exploit special salt sources, we iodize the nutrient deficient salt we get from them), all kinds of stuff. Or we get sick and die.

 

The early white explorers of NA did get scurvy, for example. And the Reds who eventually educated them were familiar with the disease and knew how to treat it - http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/wfc/xii/0191-a2.htm - a valuable piece of cultural knowledge without which humans would be in trouble on much of this continent. There are only a couple of adequate sources of vitamin C in the northern landscapes that cover most of the continent, and they are not easy to recognize as essential nutrition - they do not, as do the sources we are adapted to, present themselves as food all year around. The Reds figured it out long ago - possibly in Asia or Berengia - and the Whites learned from them. But an inability to synthesize vitamin C is a handicap on this continent, and an adaptation possibility is right there - unexploited to date.

 

So are ten others, also neglected. The question was whether there were any we have taken.

Edited July 17, 2014 by overtone

[Ophiolite]

We need clothes, shoes, fire, special dietary innovations (we not only search out and exploit special salt sources, we iodize the nutrient deficient salt we get from them), all kinds of stuff. Or we get sick and die

This is just silly. The clothes and shoes and fire are courtesy of our intelligence and culture, both of which are a consequence of our evolutionary adaptations.

 

A frigging beaver colony cannot flourish without building a dam. A dam is the equivalent of our clothing. By your argument beavers are not adapted to North America. That is damn nonsense.

[John Cuthber]

Just for the record, people were living in North America before anyone had heard of iodine, vitamin C, Vitamin D or a few other things that may have been mentioned in this thread.

Our intrinsic lack of vitamin C and our variable vit D production are essentially irrelevant because we can farm things which make them for us.

 

It's absolutely stupefyingly obvious that people are adapted to live there because the people living there are showing no signs of dying out; on the contrary, they thrive.

Regarding the earlier comments about our suitability for life on the moon-

"It occurs to me to wonder how many posters here would accept that event as evidence that humans are adapted to the common environments found on the moon."

Well, our big brains and sense of cooperation is

the reason we can get by in cold climates and also the reason we can visit the moon.

I have yet to see any other animal walking on it so, compared to all the other species, yes, we are uniquely well suited to life on the moon. No other creature has done it.

[chadn737]

And the Reds who eventually educated them were familiar......

 

Since when did "Reds" become an acceptable term and not an offensive one? Thats at least twice now that you have used it.

Edited July 18, 2014 by chadn737

[overtone]

A frigging beaver colony cannot flourish without building a dam. A dam is the equivalent of our clothing. By your argument beavers are not adapted to North America. That is damn nonsense.

River beavers don't build dams. Neither do big lake beavers. But never mind:

 

So are we, or are we not, biologically adapted to living on the moon?

 

By my count there are four posters here arguing that we are, one of them explicitly (Cuthber).

 

I'm somewhat at a loss, faced with that as confident assertion. I had thought the argument a form of reductio ad absurdum.

 

We are going to need some new vocabulary for what we used to mean by biological adaptation to an environment. The term used to carry some implications of having changed, y'know, like "adapted", become different and better fitted biologically in response to the environment at issue. And that used to imply genetic alterations, potentially evolutionary stuff. You guys sure you want to toss all that?

 

What do you plan to use in its place?

Edited July 18, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

 

The early white explorers of NA did get scurvy, for example. And the Reds who eventually educated them were familiar with the disease and knew how to treat it - http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/wfc/xii/0191-a2.htm - a valuable piece of cultural knowledge without which humans would be in trouble on much of this continent. There are only a couple of adequate sources of vitamin C in the northern landscapes that cover most of the continent, and they are not easy to recognize as essential nutrition - they do not, as do the sources we are adapted to, present themselves as food all year around. The Reds figured it out long ago - possibly in Asia or Berengia - and the Whites learned from them. But an inability to synthesize vitamin C is a handicap on this continent, and an adaptation possibility is right there - unexploited to date.

 

 

Explorers, especially ones trapped in ships in frozen areas, are not representative of a population. It would be like taking a survey of the players in the NBA and basing conclusions of human height from the data.

[overtone]

Explorers, especially ones trapped in ships in frozen areas, are not representative of a population.

Those were. They were almost the only representatives of their population at the time, and like the rest of their population they did not know how to cover for their biological vulnerabilities, their misfit metabolic requirements, in this new environment.

 

And they were not the only early and then pioneer Whites and Blacks to get scurvy while traipsing around the NA landscape - or goiters, rickets, rectal fistulas, etc ( without dairy cattle or sea salt supply, as soon as they got too far from the coast they were vulnerable, especially pregnant or infant.)

 

The point was that the Reds knew about scurvy. They knew its symptoms, its circumstances, and its treatment. They shared the White and Black inability to synthesize vitamin C, and it was indeed a handicap which their culturall expertise only partly covered. Biologically, they were as yet not adapted to an environment so lacking in Vitamin C, one in which humans must eat tree bark and needles to keep from getting sick.

 

And considering that rickets is the dramatic and severe consequence of not merely harmful shortage of Vitamin D (many manifestations, some subtle) but catastrophic absence of the stuff (obvious pathology), this kind of account indicates wome of ths degree to which humans have yet to biologically adapt to high latitude sunlight regimes: http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Pre-Sma/Rickets.html http://www.articlesbase.com/diseases-and-conditions-articles/history-of-rickets-4106491.html http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1692731.html

Edited July 18, 2014 by overtone

[swansont]

Those were. They were almost the only representatives of their population at the time, and like the rest of their population they did not know how to cover for their biological vulnerabilities, their misfit metabolic requirements, in this new environment.

 

And they were not the only early and then pioneer Whites and Blacks to get scurvy while traipsing around the NA landscape - or goiters, rickets, rectal fistulas, etc ( without dairy cattle or sea salt supply, as soon as they got too far from the coast they were vulnerable, especially pregnant or infant.)

 

 

I fail to see how a group of people confined to a ship are traipsing about the landscape, or how their diet/lifestyle was representative of the population. I mean, that's precisely the problem — you get scurvy because of your lack of access to a normal diet and your over-reliance on preserved foods.

 

Would the native Americans have gotten scurvy under the same conditions?

[chadn737]

Those were. They were almost the only representatives of their population at the time, and like the rest of their population they did not know how to cover for their biological vulnerabilities, their misfit metabolic requirements, in this new environment.

 

And they were not the only early and then pioneer Whites and Blacks to get scurvy while traipsing around the NA landscape - or goiters, rickets, rectal fistulas, etc ( without dairy cattle or sea salt supply, as soon as they got too far from the coast they were vulnerable, especially pregnant or infant.)

 

The point was that the Reds knew about scurvy. They knew its symptoms, its circumstances, and its treatment. They shared the White and Black inability to synthesize vitamin C, and it was indeed a handicap which their culturall expertise only partly covered. Biologically, they were as yet not adapted to an environment so lacking in Vitamin C, one in which humans must eat tree bark and needles to keep from getting sick.

 

And considering that rickets is the dramatic and severe consequence of not merely harmful shortage of Vitamin D (many manifestations, some subtle) but catastrophic absence of the stuff (obvious pathology), this kind of account indicates wome of ths degree to which humans have yet to biologically adapt to high latitude sunlight regimes: http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Pre-Sma/Rickets.html http://www.articlesbase.com/diseases-and-conditions-articles/history-of-rickets-4106491.html http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1692731.html

 

The first recorded instance of scurvy is in papyrus from Egypt dating back to ~1500 BC. The disease was common and known throughout human populations across the globe. Treatment of scurvy was discovered and lost many times in this period. Same with all these diseases. You're acting like these were something new to Europeans and thus symptomatic of North American lacking resources. In reality, the problems suffered by many settlers and explores can be attributed to ignorance and not a lack of resources.

The point was that the Reds knew about scurvy.

 

Thats three times now that you have used a term for Native Americans that is considered offensive.

Edited July 18, 2014 by chadn737

[Ophiolite]

 

Since when did "Reds" become an acceptable term and not an offensive one? Thats at least twice now that you have used it.

I was about to question this, until I realised you were not talking about communists. Therefore, excellent point.

River beavers don't build dams. Neither do big lake beavers. But never mind:

So some species, or sub-species of beavers do not built dams. Astounding. But never mind. My argument stands.

 

 

 

RSo are we, or are we not, biologically adapted to living on the moon?

So, you have not just moved the goal posts, you have moved the whole frigging stadium and the town and continent it is in.

 

Probably not. We are not biologically adapted to living in Antarctica. How do I know this? Because we do not flourish there. We do not have families there. People do not live out there lives there. We are unable to secure adequate food there. Perhaps, when our cultural adaptations are strong enough we may be able to do so there and on the moon. A cultural adaptation is what is required. (In this context cultural partially conflates with economic.)

 

 

By my count there are four posters here arguing that we are, one of them explicitly (Cuthber).

I not arguing with them. I'm arguing with you. And I'm arguing about NA adaptation.

[overtone]

 

 

Would the native Americans have gotten scurvy under the same conditions?

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

 

 

You're acting like these were something new to Europeans and thus symptomatic of North American lacking resources

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.

 

 

Thats three times now that you have used a term for Native Americans that is considered offensive.

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.

 

Meanwhile, I'm counting: Do you think we are biologically adapted to the moon? If we start a moon colony, and it thrives without a single genetically fixed alteration of our biology, would that change your assessment ?

 

 

 

Probably not. We are not biologically adapted to living in Antarctica. How do I know this? Because we do not flourish there. We do not have families there. People do not live out there lives there. We are unable to secure adequate food there

We are certainly able to do all those things, using our intelligence and so forth - same way we accomplished our "flourishing" in Houston, and the other common environments of NA. Observe the population centers around Hudson Bay and the North Slope.

 

 

 

And I'm arguing about NA adaptation.

That is, the OP question: The biological adaptation of humans to North America (in some vague sense of the collected environoments).

 

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.

 

So I'm wondering: where does the new line get drawn? You have proposed a historical criterion: wherever we haven't already colonized - Antarctica, Mars, the newly ice free regions of Greenland, the remaining unpopulated islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago; how about the abandoned places, where humans lthrived for a while and then things changed and they left? Did we lose our biological adaptation, or never have it, or what?

 

And another question: what vocabulary are we going to use to talk about what we used to call biological adaptation to the circumstances of a given environment, landscape, newly colonized region, etc? White skin and lactose tolerance in northern Eurasia, for example. Are we simply giving up the distinction between genetically melanistic skin and commercially purchased sunblock, as "adaptations"?

[Ophiolite]

From wikipedia - "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]

 

This may appear to be off topic. I would maintain that requesting the use of respectful language is always on topic.

[Acme]

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. ...

Nonsense. There are many plants that Native Americans ate as greens that contain Vitamin C (Claytonia comes to mind), as well as the squash, corn & beans they grew. (These three were referred to as the 'Three Sisters' by Native Americans.)

 

The Native Americans relied heavily on squash and grew several kinds, each of which were harvested at different points during the year. For example, summer squash was eaten during the warm months while pumpkins were harvested in the fall. Many types of squash were dried for food during the winter when crops could not be grown. Squash provides both vitamin A and C in varying amounts depending on the type. These vitamins support your immune system, promote wound healing and protect the health of your teeth. By including plenty of squash in their diets, Native Americans kept themselves healthy in a time when a doctor's care wasn't easy to come by.

source

 

Another source:NATIVE PLANTS AND NUTRITION

Edit: From the above reference and concerning Vitamin C.

 

...There are food similarities between Native American tribes regardless of geographical location. Many of the same plant food sources are known by different names according to each tribe and that belong to a certain family or similar species of plants. Related plant species contain basically the same nutritional values. For example, the Blackfeet Savis berry is also known as Sarvis berry, June berry, Saskatoon berry, and Service berry to most Plains Indian tribes. Natives in the northeast region of United States know the Savis berry to be called Shadbush, Sugar Plum, and Indian Cherry. The United States Department of Agriculture calls this same berry the Downy Service Berry. The differences between plant species are slight. Nutritional values are fundamentally parallel. These berries contain a fair amount of vitamin C and the seeds are considered anti-carcinogenic, anti-oxidant and anti-aging.

...

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark expedition amongst the plains Indians during 1804 to 1806 documents many of the plants and foods that the Blackfeet and neighboring tribes gathered. Their botanical journals also include how some foods were prepared, stored, tribal lore and lifestyles of the “high plains” tribes during this time (H. Wayne Phillips, 2003). Lewis and Clark more than once stated that if it were not for the hospitable generosity and nutritious foods given them by various tribes, they would have famished nutritionally and weakened in physical, perhaps even starved to death.

This is an excellent resource on Native Americans uses of plants for food, medicine, and poison: >>Native American Ethnobotany @ University of Michigan, Dearborn; A Database of Foods, Drugs, Dyes and Fibers of Native American Peoples, Derived from Plants.

 

Also following up from the link I gave on Claytonia in my first paragraph:

...OTHER USES AND VALUES :

The blossoms, leaves, and stems of miner's-lettuce may be eaten by

humans at any time during the growing season. They are eaten raw or

cooked, and are a good source of vitamin C [11,37]. Historically,

miner's-lettuce was used as a salad plant and potherb by white settlers

and Native Americans [19]. It was also used to avert or cure scurvy

[37]. ...

Edited July 19, 2014 by Acme