Aquatic ape hypothesis

[mistermack]

20 minutes ago, CEngelbrecht said:

You don't even click the link.

I clicked the link, and what did I find ? 

"Belgraver, for example, found that members of a swimming club had an incidence of 42.8% while patients in his general clinic had an incidence recorded as low as 2.02%.32"

Which indicates that the condition is NOT limited to regular swimmers, but it is just more common amongst them. HOWEVER, he didn't examine a sample of human patients from 40,000 years ago living a rough life outdoors in all weathers. I think he would have found much more than 2.02% incidence. 

Your link is to an article by a committed AAH supporter who draws wildly unwarranted conclusions from the evidence produced. It's not at all balanced work. Very much along the lines of Elaine Morgan.

[CEngelbrecht]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

given that humans need access to fresh water, it’s not all that surprising that hominids would live nearby and bathe or swim.

Which is why all other simians and mammals also needing access to fresh water doesn't evolve surfer's ear, obviously.

Quote

Noting that Neandertals got swimmer’s ear and thus may have fished is irrelevant; AAH claims that bipedalism was a result of life in the water, and human ancestors were bipedal far earlier. It’s not evidence that any features evolved as a result

Neanderthals and erectus before them. At least two million years of hominin evolution is accompanied by surfer's ear. Right from the explosive brain growth of the Homo family. You do the math.

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Your link is to an article by a committed AAH supporter who draws wildly unwarranted conclusions from the evidence produced. It's not at all balanced work. Very much along the lines of Elaine Morgan.

I know, he's one of the heretics. He says what you don't want to hear: That this inconvenient truth is long since proven using your own scientific method.

You need all this to be nuts for deeply complex sociological reasons, and it just refuses to be, it's disgusting. Then to hell with your own scientific method.

Edited January 31, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, CEngelbrecht said:

I know, he's one of the heretics. He says what you don't want to hear: That this inconvenient truth is long since proven using your own scientific method.

You need all this to be nuts for deeply complex sociological reasons, and it just refuses to be, it's disgusting. Then to hell with your own scientific method.

Perhaps if you actually employed the scientific method…

It’s not enough to show that some features could have arisen from an aquatic existence. You need to show that they must have, and it has to cover all features.

56 minutes ago, CEngelbrecht said:

Neanderthals and erectus before them. At least two million years of hominin evolution is accompanied by surfer's ear. Right from the explosive brain growth of the Homo family. You do the math.

The math says that bipedalism arose before that.

“the discovery of “Lucy” (Johanson et al. 1982), a 3.2-million-year-old (Ma) Australopithecus afarensis skeleton that was very ape-like above the neck but possessed a suite of characters related to bipedalism throughout the rest of the skeleton. Then came the 3.7-Ma Laetoli footprint trail—an exquisitely preserved moment in time when two or more hominins walked bipedally across an ash-covered landscape”

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0257-6

 

[CEngelbrecht]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Perhaps if you actually employed the scientific method…

It’s not enough to show that some features could have arisen from an aquatic existence. You need to show that they must have, and it has to cover all features.

The math says that bipedalism arose before that.

Exactly. Because bipedalism evolved +5mya in the hinterland of Africa, in freshwater lakes and streams. Vertical bipedalism is what happens when all simian species wade through shallow water, as illustrated above. We see that as bipedalism in the early hominin fossils, because they became a semiaquatic ape first in African jungles, evolving from even earlier canopy dwelling apes.

Conversely, the growing brain needs salt water biomes. Both terrestrial and fresh water foodchains simply do not contain the micronutrients necessary for a mammal species to evolve that large brain across cento millenia. It needs specifically EPA and DHA fatty acids and most crucially iodine to do it. That's why an ocean dolphin have five times the brain of a savannah zebra. 'Cause lo and behold, salt water foodchains have those exact building blocks in quantity. That's why the hominin brain grew exponentially long after the birth of hominin bipedalism, because a strand of australopithecines made the transition from fresh water to salt water in East Africa ~2mya, giving birth to the Homo family. A then flooded Afar Triangle was the perfect tropical cradle towards the beach ape that you all still are.

There is no terrestrial scenario that can thus explain that difference in dates for bipedalism and growing brain, respectively. The aquatic one can.

Edited January 31, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

There is no terrestrial scenario that can thus explain that difference in dates for bipedalism and growing brain, respectively. The aquatic one can.

If you don't want to see them, then 'terrestrial scenarios' cease to exist. When you get fixated on one thing, that's all you will ever see.

What about tool use? We became bipedal to free the hands, and then later, tool use and it's benefits drove an increase  in brain size. 

I'm not saying that's right, but it's an obvious possibility that you seem blissfully unaware of, with your single-track thinking. At least there is solid evidence out there for tool use. It's not just in our imaginations. 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

Except that Homo sapiens have lost about 100cc of brain volume over the last 40,000 years.

What's brain volume got to do with the price of eggs?

 

4 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

There is no terrestrial scenario that can thus explain that difference in dates for bipedalism and growing brain, respectively. The aquatic one can.

We can't tell how clever we are compared to our parents, let alone great great/etc. grandparents...

The aquatic one can/can't, depending on the fluid??? 🤔

The fact that your average human is more comfortable in a gaseous "fluid" environment, would suggest, to me at least, the aquatic one can't... 😉

We don't have to swim to catch fish...

[CEngelbrecht]

57 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you don't want to see them, then 'terrestrial scenarios' cease to exist. When you get fixated on one thing, that's all you will ever see.

What about tool use? We became bipedal to free the hands, and then later, tool use and it's benefits drove an increase  in brain size. 

I'm not saying that's right, but it's an obvious possibility that you seem blissfully unaware of, with your single-track thinking. At least there is solid evidence out there for tool use. It's not just in our imaginations. 

The biochemical building blocks still aren't there unless you use them tools to crack open a handful of oysters couple times a week. For hundreds of thousands of years.

Do that for two million years, what you get? Bigger and bigger brain. Without salt water fauna seafood, an ape just won't evolve it.

The Earth is not the center of the universe. What can you do?

Edited January 31, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[Bufofrog]

33 minutes ago, CEngelbrecht said:

Without salt water fauna seafood, an ape just won't evolve it.

Saying that over and over does not make it true.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

Exactly. Because bipedalism evolved +5mya in the hinterland of Africa, in freshwater lakes and streams. Vertical bipedalism is what happens when all simian species wade through shallow water, as illustrated above. We see that as bipedalism in the early hominin fossils, because they became a semiaquatic ape first in African jungles, evolving from even earlier canopy dwelling apes.

But you’ve presented no evidence of this. You presented other evidence that has no bearing on this claim.

[mistermack]

47 minutes ago, CEngelbrecht said:

The biochemical building blocks still aren't there

That is absolute rubbish. Humans living thousands of miles from the ocean, hundreds of miles from running water, still develop normally, and their childrens brains grow properly, even in times of famine. They could easily grow bigger brains, if evolution favoured it, but childbirth and general robustness are limiting factors, not biochemical building blocks. 

[Moontanman]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

I said no such thing. You're inventing your own facts. Which doesn't argue well for the general quality of your arguments. So it's not surprising that the AAH is for you. Jim Moore's writing generally makes sense. Elaine Morgan's writing is pretty worthless, full of special pleading. 

I enjoyed her books of fiction... but the AAT has been shown to be false.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, CEngelbrecht said:

The Earth is not the center of the universe. What can you do?

Well, you can't swim away...

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

It needs specifically EPA and DHA fatty acids and most crucially iodine to do it.

Beef, lamb, eggs, venison, poultry, etc. all contain the more bioavailable forms of O3 PUFAs.  And many plant sources of convertible ALA are out there for inland hunter-gatherers when the game is scarce.  

Iodine, similarly, is in terrestrial animal tissues and also in such plant foods as green beans, zucchinis, kale, spring greens, watercress, strawberries and potatoes.   Your claim that seafood and kelp is necessary would suggest that extant inland H-G peoples are all suffering severe deficiency (or were never viable).  Which is nonsensical.  Iodine deficiency became more common after the advent of agriculture, when some settlements came to eat a diet less varied than the H-G diet.

You have no evidence of rampant goiters and less-developed brains among Bedouins, aborigines, Navajos and Bushmen, do you?  

 

[CEngelbrecht]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Saying that over and over does not make it true.

You're missing 100cc of brain because of it, sapiens. And today we're draining the world oceans of the brain food. Endemic cretinism will only increase, if we even survive the next century, what with climate change, fission war and whatnot.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

But you’ve presented no evidence of this. You presented other evidence that has no bearing on this claim.

This is all based on the already known fossil archive along with comparative analysis straight out of Darwinian tradition and sound biochemical observation.

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

That is absolute rubbish. Humans living thousands of miles from the ocean, hundreds of miles from running water, still develop normally, and their childrens brains grow properly, even in times of famine. They could easily grow bigger brains, if evolution favoured it, but childbirth and general robustness are limiting factors, not biochemical building blocks. 

Uhuh.

Quote

 

"In Corella the school children, 60 percent of them, are Iodine deficient. I saw exactly the same in Indonesia when I was there for the World Health Organization. 60 percent of the school children, the same number, had palpable goiter. When we got to the fishing villages, not one. So this movement inland, which has happened as a consequence of population expansion, has brought about some serious degenerative disorders."

- Michael Crawford

 

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, you can't swim away...

Do you even know what this idea is actually suggesting? Do you even give a fuck?

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I enjoyed her books of fiction... but the AAT has been shown to be false.

That's nice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98

No one ever succeeded in proving it false. As little as the cardinals proved Galileo wrong.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Beef, lamb, eggs, venison, poultry, etc. all contain the more bioavailable forms of O3 PUFAs.  And many plant sources of convertible ALA are out there for inland hunter-gatherers when the game is scarce.  

Iodine, similarly, is in terrestrial animal tissues and also in such plant foods as green beans, zucchinis, kale, spring greens, watercress, strawberries and potatoes.   Your claim that seafood and kelp is necessary would suggest that extant inland H-G peoples are all suffering severe deficiency (or were never viable).  Which is nonsensical.  Iodine deficiency became more common after the advent of agriculture, when some settlements came to eat a diet less varied than the H-G diet.

You have no evidence of rampant goiters and less-developed brains among Bedouins, aborigines, Navajos and Bushmen, do you?  

So why add it to your kitchen salt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency

Quote

"According to World Health Organization, in 2007, nearly 2 billion individuals had insufficient iodine intake, a third being of school age." A conclusion was made that the single most preventable cause of intellectual disability is that of iodine deficiency.

A quarter of the world's sapienses don't get enough iodine. Are you gonna believe the WHO?

There is only one general food source plentiful in iodine, as well as the other brain selective micronutrients. And that is seafood.

You're denying irrefutable evidence for no other reason than that of Elaine Morgan being an irritating armchair scientist that is not supposed to have a point. You're all acting out of sociological bullshit, not scientic enquiry. And it needs to stop, 'cause her studies have over time revealed why we have been losing our brain for 40 millenia, and why it will only continue for any foreseeable future. Without Morgan, we would simply not know this. Stop pissing on your own giant already!!!

Edited January 31, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[iNow]

I’m not impressed by the self-evidently false subtly camouflaged racism on display here

Edited January 31, 2023 by iNow

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, CEngelbrecht said:

So why add it to your kitchen salt?

As was already pointed  out, the agricultural revolution (which is an eyeblink in our evolutionary history) decreased the range and variety of dietary choices for many humans.  The reason inland Indonesians are prone to goiter is due to the limited diet (and often iodine-depleted tropical soils, due to problematic farming practices) of modern developing countries.  The contrast between coastal dwellers and inlanders is precisely because of what I'm trying to explain.  With a modern limited diet, the addition of seafood (or provision of iodized salt) then becomes an important boost in iodine intake.  It does not follow from this that the ancient land-based HG diet was also deficient in iodine, nor have you provided the slightest evidence that it was.  

This underscores the difficulty in deriving a theory of ancient hunter-gatherers from modern post-agrarian societies.  HGs ate everything and lived in ecosystems which did not have depleted soils.  

I notice you wisely backed away from my further comments on omega 3 PUFAs and their prevalence in a variety of land-based sources.  

As a side note:  as any nutrition scientist can tell you, it's not the quantity of O3 that matters but rather its ratio to O6 PUFAs. (humans actually need relatively little PUFA in the diet, with a greater benefit from MUFA)  Because the western diet is so very high in O6 now, due to the heavy use of cooking oils like sunflower and canola in processed foods, the recommendations to bring the ratio closer to parity with O3 lead to largish figures for O3.  Those figures would not be valid for an ancient HG.  

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, CEngelbrecht said:

You're missing 100cc of brain because of it, sapiens.

I don't believe that.  What is your evidence that seafood is the cause.

[CEngelbrecht]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't believe that.  What is your evidence that seafood is the cause.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Science stays true whether we believe in it or not.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16828044/

Quote

The circumstances of human brain evolution are of central importance to accounting for human origins, yet are still poorly understood. Human evolution is usually portrayed as having occurred in a hot, dry climate in East Africa where the earliest human ancestors became bipedal and evolved tool-making skills and language while struggling to survive in a wooded or savannah environment. At least three points need to be recognised when constructing concepts of human brain evolution : (1) The human brain cannot develop normally without a reliable supply of several nutrients, notably docosahexaenoic acid, iodine and iron. (2) At term, the human fetus has about 13 % of body weight as fat, a key form of energy insurance supporting brain development that is not found in other primates. (3) The genome of humans and chimpanzees is <1 % different, so if they both evolved in essentially the same habitat, how did the human brain become so much larger, and how was its present-day nutritional vulnerability circumvented during 5-6 million years of hominid evolution ? The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores, but this point is usually overlooked in conceptualizing how the human brain evolved. Shellfish, fish and shore-based animals and plants are the richest dietary sources of the key nutrients needed by the brain. Whether on the shores of lakes, marshes, rivers or the sea, the consumption of most shore-based foods requires no specialized skills or tools. The presence of key brain nutrients and a rich energy supply in shore-based foods would have provided the essential metabolic and nutritional support needed to gradually expand the hominid brain. Abundant availability of these foods also provided the time needed to develop and refine proto-human attributes that subsequently formed the basis of language, culture, tool making and hunting. The presence of body fat in human babies appears to be the product of a long period of sedentary, shore-based existence by the line of hominids destined to become humans, and became the unique solution to insuring a back-up fuel supply for the expanding hominid brain. Hence, survival of the fattest (babies) was the key to human brain evolution.

 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I notice you wisely backed away from my further comments on omega 3 PUFAs and their prevalence in a variety of land-based sources. 

I didn't back away, I'm gonna explain it again. The chain ends with EPA and DHA. Which is plentiful in salt water fauna seafood, and nowhere else. You brain needs DHA for its growth and upkeep.

And you have lost 100cc of sapiens brain over the last 40 millenia, because the 40ky old mutated gene now synthesizing ALA and other terrestrial PUFAs towards EPA and DHA is inefficient. You haven't been able to upkeep your brain in full since that date. There is only one likely explanation for why you're in short supply of DHA today: Because you no longer eat the original diet that built your brain across at least two million years. Because you switched from seafood to big game. Terrestrial big game has the benefit of a much higher calory count, though short in the brain-specific building blocks. Your hunt for more calories is gradually costing you your brain. Ongoing.

Do you now understand? Do you understand just how fucking important this discovery is?

And do you understand how bleeding stupid it is to keep rejecting such a discovery just because it is an inconvenient truth for some fucking fraternity?

Edited January 31, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, CEngelbrecht said:

It doesn't matter what you believe. Science stays true whether we believe in it or not.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16828044/

The publication does not show that 'science supports' your idea, the publication shows that 3 guys have written multiple articles together and separately saying seafood was vital for brain development.  The overwhelming bulk of scientific literature on diet and the evolution of the human brain does not support your claim.

[mistermack]

This brain argument is pretty much the weakest of the lot of the AAH, and that's really saying something. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at it seriously that it just doesn't stand inspection. The human brain stops growing at age 11 in girls and about 14 in boys. Does their diet suddenly get cut off at that age? Of course not. There's no dietary reason why the brain shouldn't keep growing. It stops because it's reached an optimum compromise, arrived at by the deaths and survival of varied humans over millions of years. 

The iodine question has been answered perfectly well, with the farming reference. Wild human ancestors would have had a much more varied diet, and would probably regularly attend salt licks, like many other animals do. Farming, with its tendency to cut the variety of food, is modern, and so the problems it brings are modern too, and can't be applied to what was happening millions of years ago.

[CEngelbrecht]

Piss on William of Ockham...

Edited January 31, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[swansont]

5 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

I didn't back away, I'm gonna explain it again. The chain ends with EPA and DHA. Which is plentiful in salt water fauna seafood, and nowhere else. You brain needs DHA for its growth and upkeep.

And you have lost 100cc of sapiens brain over the last 40 millenia, because the 40ky old mutated gene now synthesizing ALA and other terrestrial PUFAs towards EPA and DHA is inefficient. You haven't been able to upkeep your brain in full since that date. There is only one likely explanation for why you're in short supply of DHA today: Because you no longer eat the original diet that built your brain across at least two million years.

What’s the evidence that the diet has changed? Did all humans stop eating seafood? Is there evidence that populations that eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains?

The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores,

Is this any different in the last 40k years?

[CEngelbrecht]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

What’s the evidence that the diet has changed? Did all humans stop eating seafood? Is there evidence that populations that eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains?

One more time for Prince Knut:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16828044/

Quote

The circumstances of human brain evolution are of central importance to accounting for human origins, yet are still poorly understood. Human evolution is usually portrayed as having occurred in a hot, dry climate in East Africa where the earliest human ancestors became bipedal and evolved tool-making skills and language while struggling to survive in a wooded or savannah environment. At least three points need to be recognised when constructing concepts of human brain evolution : (1) The human brain cannot develop normally without a reliable supply of several nutrients, notably docosahexaenoic acid, iodine and iron. (2) At term, the human fetus has about 13 % of body weight as fat, a key form of energy insurance supporting brain development that is not found in other primates. (3) The genome of humans and chimpanzees is <1 % different, so if they both evolved in essentially the same habitat, how did the human brain become so much larger, and how was its present-day nutritional vulnerability circumvented during 5-6 million years of hominid evolution ? The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores, but this point is usually overlooked in conceptualizing how the human brain evolved. Shellfish, fish and shore-based animals and plants are the richest dietary sources of the key nutrients needed by the brain. Whether on the shores of lakes, marshes, rivers or the sea, the consumption of most shore-based foods requires no specialized skills or tools. The presence of key brain nutrients and a rich energy supply in shore-based foods would have provided the essential metabolic and nutritional support needed to gradually expand the hominid brain. Abundant availability of these foods also provided the time needed to develop and refine proto-human attributes that subsequently formed the basis of language, culture, tool making and hunting. The presence of body fat in human babies appears to be the product of a long period of sedentary, shore-based existence by the line of hominids destined to become humans, and became the unique solution to insuring a back-up fuel supply for the expanding hominid brain. Hence, survival of the fattest (babies) was the key to human brain evolution.

 

Quote

The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores,

Is this any different in the last 40k years?

Surfer's ear, a clear marker for lifetime aquatic activity, is prevalent in both erectus and Neanderthal fossils from 2mya and until the extinction of the Neanderthals 40kya. For that very long period of time, the hominin brain was on a constant increase, until it peaked around 1500cc in Neanderthals. Couple surfer's ear with these biochemical needs of the hominin brain, hominins couldn't have kept evolving a larger and larger brain without vital access to such nutrients, with saltwater seafood being by far the most parsimonous source.

With sapiens moving in to dominate Eurasia, surfer's ear disappears from the fossils. And this happens alongside a now gradual loss of sapiens brain volume all the way to modern times. You do the math.

Edited February 1, 2023 by CEngelbrecht

[swansont]

11 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

One more time for Prince Knut:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16828044/

Since you apparently need this spelled out (and I really shouldn’t have to): you have shared a link saying that seafood is necessary for proper evolutionary brain development ca. 2mya. If we provisionally accept this (others have challenged it), it’s separate from the claim that we’ve lost 100cc of brain volume 40k years ago. Your assertion is that this loss is because “we” no longer have the same diet

Where is the evidence that all humans stopped eating seafood? Your position requires this.

If this loss of volume is an evolutionary disadvantage and is diet-related, why did the humans who lived on the coast and ate seafood suffer this loss? Shouldn’t people who eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? 

 

 

11 hours ago, CEngelbrecht said:

 

Surfer's ear, a clear marker for lifetime aquatic activity, is prevalent in both erectus and Neanderthal fossils from 2mya and until the extinction of the Neanderthals 40kya. For that very long period of time, the hominin brain was on a constant increase, until it peaked around 1500cc in Neanderthals. Couple surfer's ear with these biochemical needs of the hominin brain, hominins couldn't have kept evolving a larger and larger brain without vital access to such nutrients, with saltwater seafood being by far the most parsimonous source.

With sapiens moving in to dominate Eurasia, surfer's ear disappears from the fossils. And this happens alongside a now gradual loss of sapiens brain volume all the way to modern times. You do the math.

You presented evidence that surfer’s ear is present in ~half of 23 Neandertal fossils and an indeterminate number of others (only one is uniquely identified in your link) You didn’t show that it “disappears” from the fossil record.

[TheVat]

Taphonomic bias is the real problem with attempted analysis of hominin diets.

Most hominin fossils occur in lake-side environments, and the presence of fish remains is therefore not proof of fish consumption.

Really, the deeper problem with AAH is that it's an umbrella hypothesis that can't really be proved or disproved.  You could form real hypotheses from pieces of the AAH, and really weigh them on evidence.  Fish remains, for example, if one can get past taphonomic bias, could tell us something like they did catch fish and eat them.  But that does not warrant a leap to an aquatic ape that's spending huge amounts of time immersed.  Or a shore ape that must have ocean-derived iodine and omega-3.  In its present form, AAH is a house of cards.  

Edited February 1, 2023 by TheVat
fixd