The cause of nakedness

[Paul Crowl]

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com... [was
in Mosaic Ape Theory in the Box]

> What's your answer to the question - why are elephants,
> rhinos and some pigs naked, when so many mammal groups that
> live in hot climates are not?

Elephants, rhinos and those pigs are primarily diurnal and
often need to sleep on the ground during cold nights when
condensation or rain make it damp or wet. Fur or hair would be
a serious handicap under such conditions, especially for
infants. None of these animals use speed to escape predators,
so they are not obliged to use the lightest form of coat.

Whereas most medium-size and large terrestrial animals in
Africa are nocturnal. They do not lie on damp ground at night,
but are awake and alert, and are constantly on the move. When
they rest during the day, condensation will rarely be a
problem; daytime temperatures are much higher than those at
night so the chilling effect of rain during the day is rarely
serious. Most use speed to escape predators and so need the
lightest form of insulation against heat and cold.

A primate moving into a ground niche will be diurnal; it will
be incapable of escaping predators by using speed. It will fit
into the first category above and so will lose its hair on
speciation.

There is no need for a wet-ape theory to explain human
nakedness.

Paul.

[Marc Verha]

"Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> schreef in bericht
news:jQw69.8911$zX3.13070@news.indigo.ie...
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com...

> > What's your answer to the question - why are elephants,
> > rhinos and some pigs naked, when so many mammal groups
> > that live in hot climates are not?

An inventory of furlessness in mammals suggests:
- Friction (whether by water, sand, dust, clothes...) is
always (?) involved. One possible exception is the
naked bat?
- All fully aquatics are furless. For the others, the hotter
the climate & the bigger the animal, the more fur can be
missed. This suggests the most important function of fur is
thermo-insulation in air (less important in tropical as well
as in large & heavily-built animals), but friction seems to
be disadvantageous (speed reduction in water? infection
risks in sand? other reasons?).

Marc

[John Roth]

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
message news:3d5b6195$0$222$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> schreef in
> bericht news:jQw69.8911$zX3.13070@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
> news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com...
>
> > > What's your answer to the question - why are elephants,
> > > rhinos and some pigs naked, when so many mammal groups
> > > that live in hot
climates
> > > are not?
>
> An inventory of furlessness in mammals suggests:
> - Friction (whether by water, sand, dust, clothes...) is
> always (?) involved. One possible exception is the
> naked bat?
> - All fully aquatics are furless. For the others, the
> hotter the
climate &
> the bigger the animal, the more fur can be missed. This
> suggests the most important function of fur is
> thermo-insulation
in air
> (less important in tropical as well as in large &
> heavily-built
animals),
> but friction seems to be disadvantageous (speed reduction in
> water? infection risks in sand? other reasons?).

I'd suggest that temperature control is _the_ primary issue.
Mammals will die if their core temperature varies from the
species norm by too much for too long (hibernation being the
notable exception.)

Fur is a good insulator in air, as long as the ambient
temperature does not exceed the core temperature. Once it
does, forget it. There has to be another mechanism for dumping
excess heat.

Fat is a good insulator in water, coupled to a close to the
surface network of blood vessels that can be used to dump
excess heat. This technique won't work with fur - the heat
radiator is on the wrong side of the insulator.

Very large animals, like the elephant, are on the wrong side
of the square / cube law. They've got too little surface area
to dump excess heat, so they don't need an insulator. They
need a way of dumping the heat - like their ears.

Friction isn't that much of an issue for aquatics. It's
possible to oil the fur so that it doesn't provide too much
drag. It's just that it's a very bad insulator when it's wet,
so animals that spend a large amount of their time in the
water need something else.

As far as h. sapiens (and some number of ancestors, possibly
going back to h. habilis) is concerned, the issue is
multi-habitat adaptation. Neither fur nor fat is particularly
adaptable. Either provides a relatively fixed amount of
insulation, thus limiting the animal to habitats that require
that amount.

The solution which modern h. sapiens uses is clothing. As far
as I know, evidence for clothing (in the form of scraped and
possibly tanned hides) goes back as far as we can reasonably
expect the physical evidence to have survived, so the minimal
explanation is that we simply don't know how long the human
ancestral line used clothing as a means of temperature
regulation.

Once some form of clothing was adopted to allow range
expansion into formerly inaccessible ecological niches, fur
would no longer be a necessity. It's an expensive feature, so
it would be selected against.

And that's my armchair analysis.

John Roth
>
> Marc

[Charles]

I enjoyed your three posts on this ng. thanks. I am left with
an image of our ancestors wrapping themselves in a rotten pelt
of some sort, and it makes me think this must be why our sense
of smell is diminished! <g> --charles

John Roth wrote: <big snip>

> The solution which modern h. sapiens uses is clothing. As
> far as I know, evidence for clothing (in the form of scraped
> and possibly tanned hides) goes back as far as we can
> reasonably expect the physical evidence to have survived, so
> the minimal explanation is that we simply don't know how
> long the human ancestral line used clothing as a means of
> temperature regulation.
>
> Once some form of clothing was adopted to allow range
> expansion into formerly inaccessible ecological niches, fur
> would no longer be a necessity. It's an expensive feature,
> so it would be selected against.
>
> And that's my armchair analysis.
>
> John Roth
> >
> > Marc
> >

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 10:44:08 -0400, "John Roth"
<johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote:

>Very large animals, like the elephant, are on the wrong side
>of the square / cube law. They've got too little surface area
>to dump excess heat, so they don't need an insulator. They
>need a way of dumping the heat - like their ear

Why are wooly mammoths wooly then?

No body needs hair in SSA. You can always burrow in the ground
at night. Hair on animals is for

Display purposes- Ussually wirey hair is designed to keep the
mosquitos off of you.

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[John Roth]

That image gets to me, too. There's got to be a transition
from fur to clothing somewhere, but darned if I can figure out
exactly where, or what the sequence or overlap is.

John Roth

"Charles" <lmnoNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D5BC7D8.1D459777@mindspring.com...
> I enjoyed your three posts on this ng. thanks. I am left
> with an image of our ancestors wrapping themselves in a
rotten
> pelt of some sort, and it makes me think this must be why
> our sense of
smell
> is diminished! <g> --charles
>
> John Roth wrote: <big snip>
>
> > The solution which modern h. sapiens uses is clothing. As
> > far as I know, evidence for clothing (in the form of
> > scraped and possibly tanned hides) goes back as far as we
> > can reasonably expect the physical evidence to have
> > survived, so the minimal explanation is that we simply
> > don't know how long the human ancestral line used clothing
> > as a means of temperature regulation.
> >
> > Once some form of clothing was adopted to allow range
> > expansion into formerly inaccessible ecological niches,
> > fur would no longer be a necessity. It's an expensive
> > feature, so it would be selected against.
> >
> > And that's my armchair analysis.
> >
> > John Roth
> > >
> > > Marc
> > >
>

[Marc Verha]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> schreef in bericht
news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...

> > An inventory of furlessness in mammals suggests: Friction
> > (whether by
water, sand, dust, clothes...) is always (?) involved. One
possible exception is the naked bat? All fully aquatics are
furless. For the others, the hotter the climate & the bigger
the animal, the more fur can be missed. This suggests the most
important function of fur is thermo-insulation in air (less
important in tropical as well as in large & heavily-built
animals), but friction seems to be disadvantageous (speed
reduction in water? infection risks in sand? other reasons?).

> I'd suggest that temperature control is _the_ primary issue.
> Mammals will
die if their core temperature varies from the species norm by
too much for too long (hibernation being the notable
exception.) Fur is a good insulator in air, as long as the
ambient temperature does not exceed the core temperature. Once
it does, forget it. There has to be another mechanism for
dumping excess heat. Fat is a good insulator in water, coupled
to a close to the surface network of blood vessels that can be
used to dump excess heat. This technique won't work with fur -
the heat radiator is on the wrong side of the insulator. Very
large animals, like the elephant, are on the wrong side of the
square / cube law. They've got too little surface area to dump
excess heat, so they don't need an insulator. They need a way
of dumping the heat - like their ears.

Yes, likely, but then: why do giraffes retain fur?

> Friction isn't that much of an issue for aquatics. It's
> possible to oil
the fur so that it doesn't provide too much drag.

Do you have evidence for this?

Marc

[John Roth]

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
message news:3d5c99c5$0$274$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> schreef in bericht
> news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...
>
> > > An inventory of furlessness in mammals suggests:
> > > Friction (whether
by
> water, sand, dust, clothes...) is always (?) involved. One
> possible exception is the naked bat? All fully aquatics are
> furless. For the
others,
> the hotter the climate & the bigger the animal, the more
> fur can be
missed.
> This suggests the most important function of fur is
> thermo-insulation
in air
> (less important in tropical as well as in large &
> heavily-built
animals),
> but friction seems to be disadvantageous (speed reduction in
> water? infection risks in sand? other reasons?).
>
> > I'd suggest that temperature control is _the_ primary
> > issue. Mammals
will
> die if their core temperature varies from the species norm
> by too much
for
> too long (hibernation being the notable exception.) Fur is a
> good insulator in air, as long as the ambient temperature
> does not exceed
the
> core temperature. Once it does, forget it. There has to
> be another
mechanism
> for dumping excess heat. Fat is a good insulator in water,
coupled to
> a close to the surface network of blood vessels that can
> be used to
dump
> excess heat. This technique won't work with fur - the heat
> radiator is
on
> the wrong side of the insulator. Very large animals,
> like the
elephant,
> are on the wrong side of the square / cube law. They've got
> too little surface area to dump excess heat, so they don't
> need an insulator.
They need
> a way of dumping the heat - like their ears.
>
> Yes, likely, but then: why do giraffes retain fur?
>
> > Friction isn't that much of an issue for aquatics. It's
> > possible to
oil
> the fur so that it doesn't provide too much drag.
>
> Do you have evidence for this?

If I implied that this applied to true aquatics; that is,
aquatics that only live in the ocean and are incapable of
living on land, I obviously misspoke. I'm only talking about
animals that spend part of their time on land and part in the
ocean. The record on such animals is very mixed, some use fur,
some use fat. The ones that use fur use some mechanism to
reduce friction, and oil is the obvious candidate.

John Roth
>
> Marc

[Mario Petr]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ulo8fknemmj585@news.supernews.com...
> That image gets to me, too. There's got to be a transition
> from fur to clothing somewhere, but darned if I can figure
> out exactly where, or what the sequence or overlap is.
>
> John Roth

Can you please make it a little bit more clear to me.
Why transition from fur to clothing. What's about our
fat. -- Mario

> "Charles" <lmnoNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3D5BC7D8.1D459777@mindspring.com...
> > I enjoyed your three posts on this ng. thanks. I am left
> > with an image of our ancestors wrapping themselves in a
> > rotten pelt of some sort, and it makes me think this must
> > be why our sense of smell is diminished! <g> --charles

[John Roth]

"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in
message news:ajiptp$35hk$1@as201.hinet.hr...
>
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:ulo8fknemmj585@news.supernews.com...
> > That image gets to me, too. There's got to be a transition
> > from fur to clothing somewhere, but darned if I can figure
> > out exactly where, or what the sequence or overlap is.
> >
> > John Roth
>
> Can you please make it a little bit more clear to
> me. Why
transition
> from fur to clothing. What's about our fat. -- Mario

Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the standard
Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the sequence fur -> fat ->
clothing. Fat is a good insulator for an animal that spends
more time in the water than on land (pigs and hippopotami
being the obvious exceptions.) Water is an excellent heat
conductor, so a network of blood vessels that can dilate to
conduct excess heat to the surface provides a very good
temperature control mechanism. This doesn't work nearly as
well in air. Fur as an insulator actually depends on the
trapped air layer as the insulator. Air is a good insulator,
which is why you see small animals in cold climates with thick
coats, while large animals have a layer of hair that traps
very little air. In either case, though, they don't have
anything like the aquatic's mechanism for dumping large
amounts of excess heat quickly.

The evidence from shore dwellers that spend substantial time
in both environments is mixed.

Pigs are fairly small animals, comparatively, so they have
high surface area compared to body mass. They're also
wallowers. Hippopotami are shore aquatics - they spend
substantial amounts of time in the water, so all the
arguements for fur versus fat for shore dwellers apply.

One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a place in
the standard evolutionary lineage to put the million years or
so for the aquatic episode.

Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with
the notion of an active savanah dweller using subcutanious
fat as an insulator. The more activity, the more heat has
to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood vessel mechanism
is not that good for land dwellers. The picture simply does
not compute.

At this point in the discussion, I'm awaiting some researcher
doing a genetic analysis on the difference that allows h.
sapiens to grow a layer of subcutanious fat, and g. gorilla
not (assuming that's even true, which I'm assuming at the
moment.) It should be possible to date it.

Remember that the original work on the Aquatic Scenario was
done before we had any of the genetic information in hand. At
this point, it seems like the route of prudence is to add
that information, rather than continue with generating
unsupported theories.

John Roth

>
>
> > "Charles" <lmnoNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D5BC7D8.1D459777@mindspring.com...
> > > I enjoyed your three posts on this ng. thanks. I am left
> > > with an image of our ancestors wrapping themselves in a
> > > rotten pelt of some sort, and it makes me think this
> > > must be why our
sense of
> > > smell is diminished! <g> --charles

[Ejudy]

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
message news:<3d5b6195$0$222$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>...
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> schreef in
> bericht news:jQw69.8911$zX3.13070@news.indigo.ie...
> > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
> news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com...
>
> > > What's your answer to the question - why are elephants,
> > > rhinos and some pigs naked, when so many mammal groups
> > > that live in hot climates are not?
>
> An inventory of furlessness in mammals suggests:
> - Friction (whether by water, sand, dust, clothes...) is
> always (?) involved. One possible exception is the
> naked bat?
> - All fully aquatics are furless. For the others, the hotter
> the climate & the bigger the animal, the more fur can be
> missed. This suggests the most important function of fur
> is thermo-insulation in air (less important in tropical as
> well as in large & heavily-built animals), but friction
> seems to be disadvantageous (speed reduction in water?
> infection risks in sand? other reasons?).
>
> Marc

What about domestic piggies is different than wild pigs other
than that they have been humanly and humanely selected for
nakedness (in all its implications)?

Should have named this thread "~skyclad~ and loving it!"
Tibetans call nakedness "skyclad" and from what i heard by
grapevine, its supposed to imply humility as opposed to all
those _other_ meanings we give our birthday attire in the
west here.

ej;-)

[Puttster]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...
> Fur is a good insulator in air, as long as the ambient
> temperature does not exceed the core temperature. Once it
> does, forget it. There has to be another mechanism for
> dumping excess heat. John Roth

In dogs, and who knows many other mammals, to dump excess heat
they start panting, yes? Now if a group of hunters were
chasing prey and the leader wanted to say "You two go that way
and cut them off at the pass," would he want to be furry and
panting like my dog when it comes in from a run on a hot day?
No way. People could never get a good conversation going if as
soon as they got a little warm they had to stand around
panting at each other like dogs. Bare skin and sweat glands -
that's the way to keep a conversation going!

By the way Paul Crowley, glad to see you still posting here.
Less frequently, but still as interesting Tom Schmal

[Ejudy]

"Marc Verhaegen" wrote:
>
> Yes, likely, but then: why do giraffes retain fur?
>

I was thinking maybe for protection of their skin. Is this
ever an issue? And maybe cuz they really are kind of skinny in
parts compared to most oversized animals.

ejudy

[Algis Kuli]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...

> Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the standard
> Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the sequence fur -> fat
> -> clothing.

I don't get that. I've always considered that hairy -> naked/
no sc layer -> sc layer happenned simulataneously actually.

> Fat is a good insulator for an animal that spends more time
> in the water than on land (pigs and hippopotami being the
> obvious exceptions.) Water is an excellent heat conductor,
> so a network of blood vessels that can dilate to conduct
> excess heat to the surface provides a very good temperature
> control mechanism. This doesn't work nearly as well in air.
> Fur as an insulator actually depends on the trapped air
> layer as the insulator. Air is a good insulator, which is
> why you see small animals in cold climates with thick coats,
> while large animals have a layer of hair that traps very
> little air. In either case, though, they don't have anything
> like the aquatic's mechanism for dumping large amounts of
> excess heat quickly.

Also don't forget fat is a bouyancy aid in water, helping
locomotion, but is a hindrance on land slowing an animal down
and adding to its energy burden.

> The evidence from shore dwellers that spend substantial time
> in both environments is mixed.
>
> Pigs are fairly small animals, comparatively, so they have
> high surface area compared to body mass. They're also
> wallowers. Hippopotami are shore aquatics - they spend
> substantial amounts of time in the water, so all the
> arguements for fur versus fat for shore dwellers apply.
>
> One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a place in
> the standard evolutionary lineage to put the million years
> or so for the aquatic episode.

Why does it have to be a specific and relatively short
'phase'? Why not a long term but mild link with a
waterside habitat?

> Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with
> the notion of an active savanah dweller using subcutanious
> fat as an insulator. The more activity, the more heat has to
> be dumped, and the fat / surface blood vessel mechanism is
> not that good for land dwellers. The picture simply does not
> compute.

Sc fat, nakedness and sweat cooling make absolutely no sense
on the savannh. As Marc says, that idea is just "rrrrrubbish!"

> At this point in the discussion, I'm awaiting some
> researcher doing a genetic analysis on the difference that
> allows h. sapiens to grow a layer of subcutanious fat, and
> g. gorilla not (assuming that's even true, which I'm
> assuming at the moment.) It should be possible to date it.

Excellent point. If it was dated to be very recent (say 200kya
or less) that would be severe blow to the AAH as it would
imply that the sc fat layer evolved only after a move to a
100% terrestrial habitat. If it was dated at around 1my-500kya
is would imply modern H. sapiens was the most aquatic (if any)
in the hominid line. If it were dated at around 2 mya (as I
think most AAH proponents would predict) that would imply Homo
generally might have been more aquatic and if it was very
early (> 7my) that would imply that the ancestral condition
had been a fat (and poss naked) swimming ape.

> Remember that the original work on the Aquatic Scenario was
> done before we had any of the genetic information in hand.
> At this point, it seems like the route of prudence is to add
> that information, rather than continue with generating
> unsupported theories.
>
> John Roth

A very good point indeed, I think.

Algis Kuliukas

[Otter Nunc]

Heterochrony Address:http://www.neoteny.org Stephen J. Gould
Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Bibliographical Excerpts"To support
the argument that we evolved by retaining juvenile features of
our ancestors, Bolk provided lists of similarities between
adult humans and juvenile apes: "Our essential somatic
properties, i.e. those which distinguish the human body form
from that of other Primates, have all one feature in common,
viz they are fetal conditions that have become permanent. What
is a transitional stage in the ontogensis of other Primates
has become a terminal stage in man" (1926a, p. 468). In his
most extensive work Bolk (1926c, p. 6) provided an abbreviated
list in the following order:
1. Our "flat faced" orthognathy (a phenomenon of complex
cause related both to facial reduction and to the
retention of juvenile flexure, reflected, for example, in
the failure of the sphenoethmoidal angle to open out
during ontogeny).
2. Reduction of lack of body hair.
3. Loss of pigmentation in skin, eyes, and hair (Bolk argues
that black peoples are born with relatively light skin,
while ancestral primates are as dark at birth as ever).
4. The form of the external ear.
5. The epicanthic (or Mongolian) eyefold.
6. The central position of the foramen magnum (it migrates
backward during the ontogeny of primates).
7. High relative brain weight.
8. Persistence of the cranial sutures to an advanced age.
9. The labia majora of women.
10. The structure of the hand and foot.
11. The form of the pelvis.
12. The ventrally directed position of the sexual canal in
women.
13. Certain variations of the tooth row and cranial sutures.
To this basic list, Bolk added many additional features;
other compendia are presented by Montagu (1962), de Beer
(1948, 1958), and Keith (1949). The following items follow
Montagu's order (pp. 326-327) with some deletions and
additions:
14. Absence of brow ridges.
15. Absence of cranial crests.
16. Thinness of skull bones.
17. Position of orbits under cranial cavity.
18. Brachycephaly.
19. Small teeth.
20. Late eruption of teeth.
21. No rotation of the big toe.
22. Prolonged period of infantile dependency.
23. Prolonged period of growth.
24. Long life span.
25. Large body size (related by Bolk, 1926c, p. 39, to
retardation of ossification and retention of fetal growth
rates). These lists from Bolk and Montagu display the
extreme variation in type and importance of the basic data
presented by leading supporters of human neoteny." (Gould,
S.J. (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Cambridge: Belknap
Press. p. 357) "Humans and chimps are almost identical in
structural gens, yet differ markedly in form and behavior.
This paradox can be resolved by invoking a small genetic
difference with profound effects---alterations in the
regulatory system that slow down the general rate of
development in humans. Heterochronic changes are
regulatory changes; they require only an alteration in the
timing of features already present. If the frequency of
heterochronic change were known, it would provide a good
estimate for the importance of regulation as an
evolutionary agent" (Gould, S.J. (1977) Ontegeny and
Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press. p.
26)"Evolution occurs when ontogeny is altered in one of two
ways: when new characters are introduced at any stage of
development with varying effects upon subsequent stages, or
when characters already present undergo changes in
developmental timing. Together, these two processes exhaust
the formal content of phyletic change; the second process
is heterochrony. If change in developmental timing is
important in evolution, then this second process must be
very common (if it is predominant in frequency, I will be
in even better shape)." (Gould, S.J.
(27) Ontegeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press.pp. 4)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The cause of nakedness

Group: sci.anthropology.paleo Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 6:53pm
(EDT+5) From: sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com (Paul=A0Crowley)
"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com... =A0
[was in Mosaic Ape Theory in the Box] What's your answer to
the question - why are elephants, rhinos and some pigs naked,
when so many mammal groups that live in hot climates are not?
Elephants, rhinos and those pigs are primarily diurnal and
often need to sleep on the ground during cold nights when
condensation or rain make it damp or wet. =A0 Fur or hair
would be a serious handicap under such conditions, especially
for infants. None of these animals use speed to escape
predators, so they are not obliged to use the lightest form of
coat. Whereas most medium-size and large terrestrial animals
in Africa are nocturnal. They do not lie on damp ground at
night, but are awake and alert, and are constantly on the
move. When they rest during the day, condensation will rarely
be a problem; daytime temperatures are much higher than those
at night so the chilling effect of rain during the day is
rarely serious. Most use speed to escape predators and so need
the lightest form of insulation against heat and cold. A
primate moving into a ground niche will be diurnal; it will be
incapable of escaping predators by using speed. It will fit
into the first category above and so will lose its hair on
speciation. There is no need for a wet-ape theory to explain
human nakedness. Paul.

[Otter Nunc]

Heterochrony Address:http://www.neoteny.org Stephen J. Gould
Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Bibliographical Excerpts"To support
the argument that we evolved by retaining juvenile features of
our ancestors, Bolk provided lists of similarities between
adult humans and juvenile apes: "Our essential somatic
properties, i.e. those which distinguish the human body form
from that of other Primates, have all one feature in common,
viz they are fetal conditions that have become permanent. What
is a transitional stage in the ontogensis of other Primates
has become a terminal stage in man" (1926a, p. 468). In his
most extensive work Bolk (1926c, p. 6) provided an abbreviated
list in the following order:
1. Our "flat faced" orthognathy (a phenomenon of complex
cause related both to facial reduction and to the
retention of juvenile flexure, reflected, for example, in
the failure of the sphenoethmoidal angle to open out
during ontogeny).
2. Reduction of lack of body hair.
3. Loss of pigmentation in skin, eyes, and hair (Bolk argues
that black peoples are born with relatively light skin,
while ancestral primates are as dark at birth as ever).
4. The form of the external ear.
5. The epicanthic (or Mongolian) eyefold.
6. The central position of the foramen magnum (it migrates
backward during the ontogeny of primates).
7. High relative brain weight.
8. Persistence of the cranial sutures to an advanced age.
9. The labia majora of women.
10. The structure of the hand and foot.
11. The form of the pelvis.
12. The ventrally directed position of the sexual canal in
women.
13. Certain variations of the tooth row and cranial sutures.
To this basic list, Bolk added many additional features;
other compendia are presented by Montagu (1962), de Beer
(1948, 1958), and Keith (1949). The following items follow
Montagu's order (pp. 326-327) with some deletions and
additions:
14. Absence of brow ridges.
15. Absence of cranial crests.
16. Thinness of skull bones.
17. Position of orbits under cranial cavity.
18. Brachycephaly.
19. Small teeth.
20. Late eruption of teeth.
21. No rotation of the big toe.
22. Prolonged period of infantile dependency.
23. Prolonged period of growth.
24. Long life span.
25. Large body size (related by Bolk, 1926c, p. 39, to
retardation of ossification and retention of fetal growth
rates). These lists from Bolk and Montagu display the
extreme variation in type and importance of the basic data
presented by leading supporters of human neoteny." (Gould,
S.J. (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Cambridge: Belknap
Press. p. 357) "Humans and chimps are almost identical in
structural gens, yet differ markedly in form and behavior.
This paradox can be resolved by invoking a small genetic
difference with profound effects---alterations in the
regulatory system that slow down the general rate of
development in humans. Heterochronic changes are
regulatory changes; they require only an alteration in the
timing of features already present. If the frequency of
heterochronic change were known, it would provide a good
estimate for the importance of regulation as an
evolutionary agent" (Gould, S.J. (1977) Ontegeny and
Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press. p.
26)"Evolution occurs when ontogeny is altered in one of two
ways: when new characters are introduced at any stage of
development with varying effects upon subsequent stages, or
when characters already present undergo changes in
developmental timing. Together, these two processes exhaust
the formal content of phyletic change; the second process
is heterochrony. If change in developmental timing is
important in evolution, then this second process must be
very common (if it is predominant in frequency, I will be
in even better shape)." (Gould, S.J.
(27) Ontegeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press.pp. 4)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The cause of nakedness

Group: sci.anthropology.paleo Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 6:53pm
(EDT+5) From: sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com (Paul=A0Crowley)
"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com... =A0
[was in Mosaic Ape Theory in the Box] What's your answer to
the question - why are elephants, rhinos and some pigs naked,
when so many mammal groups that live in hot climates are not?
Elephants, rhinos and those pigs are primarily diurnal and
often need to sleep on the ground during cold nights when
condensation or rain make it damp or wet. =A0 Fur or hair
would be a serious handicap under such conditions, especially
for infants. None of these animals use speed to escape
predators, so they are not obliged to use the lightest form of
coat. Whereas most medium-size and large terrestrial animals
in Africa are nocturnal. They do not lie on damp ground at
night, but are awake and alert, and are constantly on the
move. When they rest during the day, condensation will rarely
be a problem; daytime temperatures are much higher than those
at night so the chilling effect of rain during the day is
rarely serious. Most use speed to escape predators and so need
the lightest form of insulation against heat and cold. A
primate moving into a ground niche will be diurnal; it will be
incapable of escaping predators by using speed. It will fit
into the first category above and so will lose its hair on
speciation. There is no need for a wet-ape theory to explain
human nakedness. Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

"Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote

> > What's your answer to the question - why are elephants,
> > rhinos and some pigs naked, when so many mammal groups
> > that live in hot climates are not?
>
> Elephants, rhinos and those pigs are primarily diurnal and
> often need to sleep on the ground during cold nights when
> condensation or rain make it damp or wet. Fur or hair would
> be a serious handicap under such conditions, especially for
> infants. None of these animals use speed to escape
> predators, so they are not obliged to use the lightest form
> of coat.
>
> Whereas most medium-size and large terrestrial animals in
> Africa are nocturnal. They do not lie on damp ground at
> night, but are awake and alert, and are constantly on the
> move. When they rest during the day, condensation will
> rarely be a problem; daytime temperatures are much higher
> than those at night so the chilling effect of rain during
> the day is rarely serious. Most use speed to escape
> predators and so need the lightest form of insulation
> against heat and cold.
>
> A primate moving into a ground niche will be diurnal; it
> will be incapable of escaping predators by using speed. It
> will fit into the first category above and so will lose its
> hair on speciation.
>
> There is no need for a wet-ape theory to explain human
> nakedness.

I tend to think the whole question of human nakedness is much
ado about nothing, or very little. It has been made a larger
issue by the strained efforts of AAT theorists. I also think
this response by Paul makes a lot of sense. It certainly makes
a lot more sense than an aquatic phase.

I also suspect that human sexual behaviors--which are very
distinct in that they have a lot of social implications--may
underly the origins of nakedness.

Jim

[Deowll]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0208171009.4c90846c@posting.google.com...
> "Paul Crowley" <sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com> wrote
>
> > > What's your answer to the question - why are elephants,
> > > rhinos and some pigs naked, when so many mammal groups
> > > that live in hot climates are not?
> >
> > Elephants, rhinos and those pigs are primarily diurnal and
> > often need to sleep on the ground during cold nights when
> > condensation or rain make it damp or wet. Fur or hair
> > would be a serious handicap under such conditions,
> > especially for infants. None of these animals use speed to
> > escape predators, so they are not obliged to use the
> > lightest form of coat.
> >
> > Whereas most medium-size and large terrestrial animals in
> > Africa are nocturnal. They do not lie on damp ground at
> > night, but are awake and alert, and are constantly on the
> > move. When they rest during the day, condensation will
> > rarely be a problem; daytime temperatures are much higher
> > than those at night so the chilling effect of rain during
> > the day is rarely serious. Most use speed to escape
> > predators and so need the lightest form of insulation
> > against heat and cold.
> >
> > A primate moving into a ground niche will be diurnal; it
> > will be incapable of escaping predators by using speed. It
> > will fit into the first category above and so will lose
> > its hair on speciation.
> >
> > There is no need for a wet-ape theory to explain human
> > nakedness.
>
> I tend to think the whole question of human nakedness is
> much ado about nothing, or very little. It has been made a
> larger issue by the strained efforts of AAT theorists. I
> also think this response by Paul makes a lot of sense. It
> certainly makes a lot more sense than an aquatic phase.
>
> I also suspect that human sexual behaviors--which are very
> distinct in that they have a lot of social implications--may
> underly the origins of nakedness.

Lack of hair may enhance some kinds of thermal regulation and
it does allow for reduced ecto parasite load. The Inuit are
not a very hairy people as I recall not doubt because they
have cloths to stay warm and if the do get wet the best option
is to change cloths fast!
>
> Jim

[John Roth]

But isn't it much easier to assume that juvenile apes and
chimpanzees have the same shape as the common ancestor, and
that adult gorilla and chimpanzee forms are the adaptation?

In other words, the common g/c/h ancestor was closer to the
human form? Maybe it's time to stand some assumptions on
their heads.

John Roth

"Otter Nuncents" <utturnonsents@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12437-3D5E685A-159@storefull-2331.public.lawson.webtv.ne-
t... Heterochrony Address:http://www.neoteny.org Stephen J.
Gould Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Bibliographical Excerpts"To
support the argument that we evolved by retaining juvenile
features of our ancestors, Bolk provided lists of similarities
between adult humans and juvenile apes: "Our essential somatic
properties, i.e. those which distinguish the human body form
from that of other Primates, have all one feature in common,
viz they are fetal conditions that have become permanent. What
is a transitional stage in the ontogensis of other Primates
has become a terminal stage in man" (1926a, p. 468). In his
most extensive work Bolk (1926c, p. 6) provided an abbreviated
list in the following order:
1. Our "flat faced" orthognathy (a phenomenon of complex
cause related both to facial reduction and to the
retention of juvenile flexure, reflected, for example, in
the failure of the sphenoethmoidal angle to open out
during ontogeny).
2. Reduction of lack of body hair.
3. Loss of pigmentation in skin, eyes, and hair (Bolk argues
that black peoples are born with relatively light skin,
while ancestral primates are as dark at birth as ever).
4. The form of the external ear.
5. The epicanthic (or Mongolian) eyefold.
6. The central position of the foramen magnum (it migrates
backward during the ontogeny of primates).
7. High relative brain weight.
8. Persistence of the cranial sutures to an advanced age.
9. The labia majora of women.
10. The structure of the hand and foot.
11. The form of the pelvis.
12. The ventrally directed position of the sexual canal in
women.
13. Certain variations of the tooth row and cranial sutures.
To this basic list, Bolk added many additional features;
other compendia are presented by Montagu (1962), de Beer
(1948, 1958), and Keith (1949). The following items follow
Montagu's order (pp. 326-327) with some deletions and
additions:
14. Absence of brow ridges.
15. Absence of cranial crests.
16. Thinness of skull bones.
17. Position of orbits under cranial cavity.
18. Brachycephaly.
19. Small teeth.
20. Late eruption of teeth.
21. No rotation of the big toe.
22. Prolonged period of infantile dependency.
23. Prolonged period of growth.
24. Long life span.
25. Large body size (related by Bolk, 1926c, p. 39, to
retardation of ossification and retention of fetal growth
rates). These lists from Bolk and Montagu display the
extreme variation in type and importance of the basic data
presented by leading supporters of human neoteny." (Gould,
S.J. (1977) Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Cambridge: Belknap
Press. p. 357) "Humans and chimps are almost identical in
structural gens, yet differ markedly in form and behavior.
This paradox can be resolved by invoking a small genetic
difference with profound effects---alterations in the
regulatory system that slow down the general rate of
development in humans. Heterochronic changes are
regulatory changes; they require only an alteration in the
timing of features already present. If the frequency of
heterochronic change were known, it would provide a good
estimate for the importance of regulation as an
evolutionary agent" (Gould, S.J. (1977) Ontegeny and
Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press. p.
26)"Evolution occurs when ontogeny is altered in one of two
ways: when new characters are introduced at any stage of
development with varying effects upon subsequent stages, or
when characters already present undergo changes in
developmental timing. Together, these two processes exhaust
the formal content of phyletic change; the second process
is heterochrony. If change in developmental timing is
important in evolution, then this second process must be
very common (if it is predominant in frequency, I will be
in even better shape)." (Gould, S.J.
(27) Ontegeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Belknap Press.pp. 4)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The cause of nakedness

Group: sci.anthropology.paleo Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2002, 6:53pm
(EDT+5) From: sdkhkjshg@slkjsldfsjf.com (Paul Crowley) "Algis
Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
news:442d7042.0208072249.4ff38e4a@posting.google.com... [was
in Mosaic Ape Theory in the Box] What's your answer to the
question - why are elephants, rhinos and some pigs naked, when
so many mammal groups that live in hot climates are not?
Elephants, rhinos and those pigs are primarily diurnal and
often need to sleep on the ground during cold nights when
condensation or rain make it damp or wet. Fur or hair would be
a serious handicap under such conditions, especially for
infants. None of these animals use speed to escape predators,
so they are not obliged to use the lightest form of coat.
Whereas most medium-size and large terrestrial animals in
Africa are nocturnal. They do not lie on damp ground at night,
but are awake and alert, and are constantly on the move. When
they rest during the day, condensation will rarely be a
problem; daytime temperatures are much higher than those at
night so the chilling effect of rain during the day is rarely
serious. Most use speed to escape predators and so need the
lightest form of insulation against heat and cold. A primate
moving into a ground niche will be diurnal; it will be
incapable of escaping predators by using speed. It will fit
into the first category above and so will lose its hair on
speciation. There is no need for a wet-ape theory to explain
human nakedness. Paul.

[Andrew Lan]

"Puttster" <tschxxxmal@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<nqj79.297382$q53.9522206@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...
> > Fur is a good insulator in air, as long as the ambient
> > temperature does not exceed the core temperature. Once it
> > does, forget it. There has to be another mechanism for
> > dumping excess heat. John Roth
>
> In dogs, and who knows many other mammals, to dump excess
> heat they start panting, yes? Now if a group of hunters were
> chasing prey and the leader wanted to say "You two go that
> way and cut them off at the pass," would he want to be furry
> and panting like my dog when it comes in from a run on a hot
> day? No way. People could never get a good conversation
> going if as soon as they got a little warm they had to stand
> around panting at each other like dogs. Bare skin and sweat
> glands - that's the way to keep a conversation going!
>

This is the first time I have seen the prior development of
language as a reason for the later development of
hairlessness. Let's take it seriously. It clearly puts a
great strain now on those who would in turn want to explain
language itself. Because: why not hand language? I am
expecting an answer to do with the fact that the people would
need both hands in order to adjust their IR goggles and
precision aiming?

Cheers Andrew Lancaster

[Andrew Lan]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:<ulq3f03tho802f@news.supernews.com>...
> "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
> message news:3d5c99c5$0$274$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> schreef in bericht
> > news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > > An inventory of furlessness in mammals suggests:
> > > > Friction (whether
> by
> > water, sand, dust, clothes...) is always (?) involved. One
> > possible exception is the naked bat? All fully aquatics
> > are furless. For the
> others,
> > the hotter the climate & the bigger the animal, the more
> > fur can be
> missed.
> > This suggests the most important function of fur is
> > thermo-insulation
> in air
> > (less important in tropical as well as in large &
> > heavily-built
> animals),
> > but friction seems to be disadvantageous (speed reduction
> > in water? infection risks in sand? other reasons?).
> >
> > > I'd suggest that temperature control is _the_ primary
> > > issue. Mammals
> will
> > die if their core temperature varies from the species norm
> > by too much
> for
> > too long (hibernation being the notable exception.) Fur is
> > a good insulator in air, as long as the ambient
> > temperature does not exceed
> the
> > core temperature. Once it does, forget it. There has to be
> > another
> mechanism
> > for dumping excess heat. Fat is a good insulator in water,
> coupled to
> > a close to the surface network of blood vessels that can
> > be used to
> dump
> > excess heat. This technique won't work with fur - the heat
> > radiator is
> on
> > the wrong side of the insulator. Very large animals,
> > like the
> elephant,
> > are on the wrong side of the square / cube law. They've
> > got too little surface area to dump excess heat, so they
> > don't need an insulator.
> They need
> > a way of dumping the heat - like their ears.
> >
> > Yes, likely, but then: why do giraffes retain fur?
> >
> > > Friction isn't that much of an issue for aquatics. It's
> > > possible to
> oil
> > the fur so that it doesn't provide too much drag.
> >
> > Do you have evidence for this?
>
> If I implied that this applied to true aquatics; that is,
> aquatics that only live in the ocean and are incapable of
> living on land, I obviously misspoke. I'm only talking about
> animals that spend part of their time on land and part in
> the ocean. The record on such animals is very mixed, some
> use fur, some use fat. The ones that use fur use some
> mechanism to reduce friction, and oil is the obvious
> candidate.
>
> John Roth
> >
> > Marc
> >

John, Marc

I agree with John that the friction argument can go too far. I
have seen it patronised by anti AAT dogmatists before and it
always frustrates me because as far as I can see, the best way
to look at hairlessness is by looking at hairlessness + fat +
sweating as a "regime" of temperature control. In other words
the three things go together and provide a stronger argument
as far as I can see.

As an additional advantage, in my opinion, having grown up
with mangrove swamp in my back yard, it is far more likely
that clotting of hairs was a problem. (I do not find it likely
that there was ever a fully aquatic ape, bt a swamp dweller
does not seem strange at all.)

Best Regards Andrew

[Deowll]

"Andrew Lancaster" <100761.200@compuserve.com> wrote in
message
news:5eec4b57.0208170924.2dc82904@posting.google.com...
> "Puttster" <tschxxxmal@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<nqj79.297382$q53.9522206@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...
> > > Fur is a good insulator in air, as long as the ambient
> > > temperature does not exceed the core temperature. Once
> > > it does, forget it. There has to be another mechanism
> > > for dumping excess heat. John Roth
> >
> > In dogs, and who knows many other mammals, to dump excess
> > heat they
start
> > panting, yes? Now if a group of hunters were chasing prey
> > and the
leader
> > wanted to say "You two go that way and cut them off at the
> > pass," would
he
> > want to be furry and panting like my dog when it comes in
> > from a run on
a
> > hot day? No way. People could never get a good
> > conversation going if
as
> > soon as they got a little warm they had to stand around
> > panting at each other like dogs. Bare skin and sweat
> > glands - that's the way to keep a conversation going!
> >
>
> This is the first time I have seen the prior development of
> language as a reason for the later development of
> hairlessness. Let's take it seriously. It clearly puts a
> great strain now on those who would in turn want to explain
> language itself. Because: why not hand language? I am
> expecting an answer to do with the fact that the people
> would need both hands in order to adjust their IR goggles
> and precision aiming?
>
Some parents have found they can teach sign language to kids
with verbal language problems due to mental problems and that
kids can learn sign language sooner than they can learn verbal
language. I've read a lot of suggestions that sign language
may have developed faster than verbal language but got
replaced by the more slowly developing verbal language because
sign language does tie up the hands often when they are most
needed to do something else.

One good reason for considering this is that Chimps can use
sign language reasonably well. First you have to have the need
to communicate then find a way. The way that worked best at
first may have been signing combined with verbalizations of a
fairly simple form. The advantages to being able to
communicate without tying up your hands resulted in selection
for that ability.

The point is the LCA was most likely smart enough to talk and
given a need might learn to sign because they had the physical
ability to do so but selection had to work for a while to
allow for complex verbal communication. The LCA didn't have to
physical abiltiy to make complex sounds.

There now. I've told my just so story for the day. I
can't prove this but it does seem to fit the evidence.
Until something comes up to disprove it I'll consider it
to be likely.

> Cheers Andrew Lancaster

[John Roth]

"Andrew Lancaster" <100761.200@compuserve.com> wrote in
message
news:5eec4b57.0208170924.2dc82904@posting.google.com...
> "Puttster" <tschxxxmal@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<nqj79.297382$q53.9522206@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> > "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:ulnfcilqbegc99@news.supernews.com...
> > > Fur is a good insulator in air, as long as the ambient
> > > temperature does not exceed the core temperature. Once
> > > it does, forget it.
There
> > > has to be another mechanism for dumping excess heat.
> > > John Roth
> >
> > In dogs, and who knows many other mammals, to dump excess
> > heat they
start
> > panting, yes? Now if a group of hunters were chasing prey
> > and the
leader
> > wanted to say "You two go that way and cut them off at the
> > pass,"
would he
> > want to be furry and panting like my dog when it comes in
> > from a run
on a
> > hot day? No way. People could never get a good
> > conversation going
if as
> > soon as they got a little warm they had to stand around
> > panting at
each
> > other like dogs. Bare skin and sweat glands - that's the
> > way to
keep a
> > conversation going!
> >
>
> This is the first time I have seen the prior development of
> language as a reason for the later development of
> hairlessness. Let's take it seriously. It clearly puts a
> great strain now on those who would in turn want to explain
> language itself. Because: why not hand language? I am
> expecting an answer to do with the fact that the people
> would need both hands in order to adjust their IR goggles
> and precision aiming?

Chuckle!

Actually, let's consider language. It's a truism that if
you ask the wrong question, you'll get bizzare answers. If
you manage to ask the right question, the answers come
thick and fast.

The way I define language is: "The capacity for transfering a
usable version of one entity's internal experiance to
another, by coding it, linearizing it, extenalizing it, and
then decoding
it."

If someone else said it first, I've got no arguement. I'm not
a scholar in that sense.

Notice that this doesn't restrict itself to speach. A bee's
waggle dance to transfer the location of a source of nectar is
language in this sense, albeit a very restricted form.

Now add the fact that gorillas and chimpanzees can be taught a
primative version of sign language. That absolutely fits my
definition of language, no quibbles whatsoever.

This leads to a couple of possibilities. One is that the
common ancestor of g/c/h had language to that level, and that
the gorilla and chimpanzees simply quit using it. Or maybe
they are still using it, but we haven't figured it out yet
because of our preconceptions of what they can do.

The other is that the common ancestor didn't have this
capability, and that both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineage
developed it independently, and then quit using it.

So the simplest answer is that the common g/c/h ancestor had
sign language, and used it.

Sign language has three characteristics that are not shared by
spoken language:

1. Daylight only
2. Line of sight
3. It captures the attention. (you can talk and drive, but you
can't sign and drive very well.)

So, what did they use it for?

The only thing that comes to mind is transfering status
information on the environment: that is, threats, new stuff to
harvest, various other kinds of changes. This in turn
presupposes that the various members of the tribe went around
independently part of the time, so there was independent
experiance to share.

John Roth

>
> Cheers Andrew Lancaster

[Mario Petr]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com...
> One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a place in
> the standard evolutionary lineage to put the million years
> or so for the aquatic episode.

I would suggest very long aquatic phase ending 10mya.
If we was bipedal enough than, to be able to
manipulate fire, there is no need for us to adapt for
new environments, but instead modify existing jungle
by burning it. It would give us environment we like to
live in, fringe of jungle, with a lot of shade (maybe
India type of environment). So, that implies that we
wouldn't be forced to change ourselves much since our
aquatic phase since we would modify environment to our
liking, and not modify us to environment. Some
variations could be possible, though. While
Australopithecines clade would maybe live more in
trees, our human clade could be one smaller branch
living all those years, still maybe on some sandy
shore, with no so much food around, hence forced to
use tools to get food.

> Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with
> the notion of an active savanah dweller using subcutanious
> fat as an insulator. The more activity, the more heat has to
> be dumped, and the fat / surface blood vessel mechanism is
> not that good for land dwellers. The picture simply does not
> compute.

So, not so active savanna dweller (just like today)
using "fire stick farming" manipulation of environment
(just like today)?

> At this point in the discussion, I'm awaiting some
> researcher doing a genetic analysis on the difference that
> allows h. sapiens to grow a layer of subcutanious fat, and
> g. gorilla not (assuming that's even true, which I'm
> assuming at the moment.) It should be possible to date it.
>
> Remember that the original work on the Aquatic Scenario was
> done before we had any of the genetic information in hand.
> At this point, it seems like the route of prudence is to add
> that information, rather than continue with generating
> unsupported theories. John Roth

I have a little complaint here. I have seen enough
bright men waiting for genetics to reveal them secrets
of life. Do you really think those Lego cubes can do
that. State of genetics today remainds me on state of
chemistry in Middle Ages (alchemia). Someday probably
this will be a great science, but it will not turn
coal into gold. Waiting for that to happen could turn
up a waste of time. Life is much more complicated than
that, and you need to understand its processes. No
mathematic formula can do that (although can help
somehow). Genetics was just invented, and as people
are discovering it more and more, they are staring to
find out that most of their initual presumptions were
wrong. IMO, locking your thoughts into boundaries of
those presumptions was clearly bad move (which will
need a lot of efforth to wipe out its bad consequences
on somebodies thinking process, if this could be
possible at all).

> > > "Charles" <lmnoNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3D5BC7D8.1D459777@mindspring.com...
> > > > I enjoyed your three posts on this ng. thanks.

Me too. -- Mario

[John Roth]

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
news:442d7042.0208161847.58e03885@posting.google.com...
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the
> > standard Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the sequence
> > fur -> fat ->
clothing.
>
> I don't get that. I've always considered that hairy ->
> naked/ no sc layer -> sc layer happenned simulataneously
> actually.

The -> meant a noticable amount of time in each phase.

> > One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a place
> > in the standard evolutionary lineage to put the million
> > years or so for the aquatic episode.
>
> Why does it have to be a specific and relatively short
> 'phase'? Why not a long term but mild link with a waterside
> habitat?

I'm not thinking 'short.' As far as time goes, I'm thinking a
m year or so. However, that seems to be old line Darwinian
thinking - a lot of the more recent evidence seems to confirm
punctuated equilibrium.

As far as a mild link goes, the key word is 'mild.' Shore
dwellers that spend time in both environments have either fur
or fat (do any have both?) depending on which environment is
primary, and which is secondary. "Mild" implies that the water
environment is secondary, which implies that the species would
keep fur as the insulator.

> > Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with
> > the notion of an active savanah dweller using subcutanious
> > fat as an insulator. The more activity, the more heat has
> > to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood vessel mechanism
> > is not that good for land dwellers. The picture simply
> > does not compute.
>
> Sc fat, nakedness and sweat cooling make absolutely no sense
> on the savannh. As Marc says, that idea is just
> "rrrrrubbish!"

No arguement there. The point that most of the people in favor
of it miss is that we have "no" current examples of that
adaptation. All of the current examples (number of species
that exhausts the sample:
1)use clothing as the insulator.

John Roth

[Marc Verha]

"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> schreef in bericht
news:442d7042.0208161847.58e03885@posting.google.com...
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the
> > standard Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the sequence
> > fur -> fat -> clothing.

It does not. For the X-th time: SC fat & fur have nothing to
do with each other:
- some mammals have fur & fat, eg, mammoths, most pinnipeds,
- some have none, eg, elephants,
- most mammals only have only fur, no fat,
- many marine mammals have only fat, no fur.

As long as people don't get this, I'm afraid they'll never
understand much about AAT.

AFAIK, in short, comparative data suggest fur is mostly for
thermo-insulation in air & protection, and SC fat is mostly
for energy depot & thermo-insulation in water.

Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html

[Deowll]

"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in
message news:ajlskn$7ag0$1@as201.hinet.hr...
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com...
> > One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a place
> > in the standard evolutionary lineage to put the million
> > years or so for the aquatic episode.
>
> I would suggest very long aquatic phase ending
> 10mya. If we was bipedal enough than, to be able to
> manipulate fire, there is no need for us to adapt
> for new environments, but instead modify existing
> jungle by burning it. It would give us environment
> we like to live in, fringe of jungle, with a lot of
> shade (maybe India type of environment). So, that
> implies that we wouldn't be forced to change
> ourselves much since our aquatic phase since we
> would modify environment to our liking, and not
> modify us to environment. Some variations could be
> possible, though. While Australopithecines clade
> would maybe live more in trees, our human clade
> could be one smaller branch living all those years,
> still maybe on some sandy shore, with no so much
> food around, hence forced to use tools to get food.
>
You are going to need to exclude Homo habilis as an ancestor
you know. It was surprisingly well adapted to arboreal life.
The South African apiths or at least some of them seem to have
been skilled swingers so that kicks them out. Lucy and her
kind also seem to be at least as at home in the trees as on
the ground and what do you have left?

> > Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with
> > the notion of an active savanah dweller using subcutanious
> > fat as an insulator. The more activity, the more heat has
> > to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood vessel mechanism
> > is not that good for land dwellers. The picture simply
> > does not compute.
>
> So, not so active savanna dweller (just like today)
> using "fire stick farming" manipulation of
> environment (just like today)?
>
So the use of fire goes back to when?

> > At this point in the discussion, I'm awaiting some
> > researcher doing a genetic analysis on the difference that
> > allows h. sapiens to grow a layer of subcutanious fat, and
> > g. gorilla not (assuming that's even true, which I'm
> > assuming at the moment.) It should be possible to date it.
> >
> > Remember that the original work on the Aquatic Scenario
> > was done before we had any of the genetic information in
> > hand. At this point, it seems like the route of prudence
> > is to add that information, rather than continue with
> > generating unsupported theories. John Roth
>
> I have a little complaint here. I have seen enough
> bright men waiting for genetics to reveal them
> secrets of life. Do you really think those Lego
> cubes can do that. State of genetics today remainds
> me on state of chemistry in Middle Ages (alchemia).
> Someday probably this will be a great science, but
> it will not turn coal into gold. Waiting for that to
> happen could turn up a waste of time. Life is much
> more complicated than that, and you need to
> understand its processes. No mathematic formula can
> do that (although can help somehow). Genetics was
> just invented, and as people are discovering it more
> and more, they are staring to find out that most of
> their initual presumptions were wrong. IMO, locking
> your thoughts into boundaries of those presumptions
> was clearly bad move (which will need a lot of
> efforth to wipe out its bad consequences on
> somebodies thinking process, if this could be
> possible at all).
>
But the data they are producing is getting much better which
fogs the picture no end. That always happens just before
things start to clear up.

> > > > "Charles" <lmnoNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3D5BC7D8.1D459777@mindspring.com...
> > > > > I enjoyed your three posts on this ng. thanks.
>
> Me too. -- Mario

[Bob Keeter]

in article ulsdk6lq5b988b@news.supernews.com, John Roth at
johnroth@ameritech.net wrote on 8/17/02 6:45 AM:

>
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
> news:442d7042.0208161847.58e03885@posting.google.com...
>> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>>> Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the
>>> standard Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the sequence
>>> fur -> fat ->
> clothing.
>>
>> I don't get that. I've always considered that hairy ->
>> naked/ no sc layer -> sc layer happenned simulataneously
>> actually.
>
> The -> meant a noticable amount of time in each phase.
>
>
>>> One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a place
>>> in the standard evolutionary lineage to put the million
>>> years or so for the aquatic episode.
>>
>> Why does it have to be a specific and relatively short
>> 'phase'? Why not a long term but mild link with a waterside
>> habitat?
>
> I'm not thinking 'short.' As far as time goes, I'm thinking
> a m year or so. However, that seems to be old line Darwinian
> thinking - a lot of the more recent evidence seems to
> confirm punctuated equilibrium.
>

Even in Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" scenario, each of
these phases would almost certainly have lasted for some
considerable time, right?

> As far as a mild link goes, the key word is 'mild.' Shore
> dwellers that spend time in both environments have either
> fur or fat (do any have both?) depending on which
> environment is primary, and which is secondary. "Mild"
> implies that the water environment is secondary, which
> implies that the species would keep fur as the insulator.
>

Sea lions and fur seals, polar bears, otters, beavers,
muskrat, fishercats, run the whole gamut of "aquatic
adaptiion" to the point of "loosing legs" and developing
flippers, yet all have fur. That would at least imply to me
that the loss of fur (like the cetaceans) would have to be
somewhere out there beyond seq lions in terms of the aquatic
adaptation process.

Would it not perhaps be reasonable to assume that you could
"rack up" the aquatic mammals and start tallying the
adaptations. For example, "webbed feet" might be found in 10
or 10, fur in 9 or 10, SC fat in 3 of 10, etc to define a set
of "typical" aquatic adaptations. Once you get to that, look
at it sort of as a progression. Are there any aquatic mammals
that use SC fat for even the tiniest bit of insulation that do
not have webbed feet? 8-)

Its sort of a "pattern matching approach". If you are looking
at a RF signal, you see all sorts of spikes in the signal
strength, but all you have is noise! UNLESS perhaps you see a
-20db signal, followed by a -10 db signal followed by a 0db
signal; if you dont see the pattern, you dont have an aquatic
mammal! 8-)

>>> Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty with
>>> the notion of an active savanah dweller using subcutanious
>>> fat as an insulator. The more activity, the more heat has
>>> to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood vessel mechanism
>>> is not that good for land dwellers. The picture simply
>>> does not compute.
>>
>> Sc fat, nakedness and sweat cooling make absolutely no
>> sense on the savannh. As Marc says, that idea is just
>> "rrrrrubbish!"
>
> No arguement there.

Oh, perhaps maybe just a small arguement. SC fat, nakedness,
sweat cooling are characteristics that MIGHT come about by
several different mechanisms. SC fat might well be a "savanna
penalty" for an adult but an absolutely necessary
characteristic for an infant, not for cooling but for the
continued exo-uterine development of the brain. It CUOLD be
just a calorie and protien resevoir to supply that last little
bit of "rapid development) that if executed in the uterus
would make the birth process impossible! The point being not
that this IS the incontrovertable reason for SC fat in human
infants, but its a POSSIBILITY. Nakedness might be as you have
suggested just an adaptation to clothing. If ancient hominids
had extensive fur pelts there would have been a "lower limit"
on their temperature "adaptability",
i.e. they could put on additional clothes when the temperature
got cold, but could only strip to the fur layer when it
got hot. With the clothing supplanting the fur in the
cold environment and the fur being a penalty when it got
hot. . . . . Again, not saying that its the ABSOLUTE
answer, just a possibility. Finally there is the
proposition of sweat cooling being incompatible with the
savanna. . . . . . Ever ridden a horse on a summer day?
Is the horse incontrovertably a plains/savanna animal?
Does the horse sweat? How about camels? (reduced sweat of
course, but does a camel sweat?)

Again its "possibilities". . . . . . . Take all of the
possibilities, and assign "likelihoods" based on extant
examples. For example, of all large savanna/plains animals how
many actually HAVE lost the ability to sweat? If 10 out of 10
considered have lost the ability, it would appear that
sweating is a mammal characteristic adaptation to savanna
life, just as is the case with webbed feet and an aquatic
lifestyle. If 10 of 10 large savanna/plains animals retain the
ability to sweat (in spite of the relative scarcity of water
in the savanna vs the forest/jungle/swamp) then it means
nothing in terms of a "savanna" adaptation. Pick out the
characteristics and multiply out the probabilities! 8-)

> The point that most of the people in favor of it miss is
> that we have "no" current examples of that adaptation. All
> of the current examples (number of species that exhausts
> the sample:
> 1) use clothing as the insulator.
>

That does pose the problem. Of course the arch enemy of
theories in general is facts! 8-)

REgards bk

[Mario Petr]

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
message news:3d5e5086$0$190$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> AFAIK, in short, comparative data suggest fur is mostly for
> thermo-insulation in air & protection, and SC fat is mostly
> for energy depot & thermo-insulation in water. Marc
> Verhaegen

OK. Lets talk about protection. In water protection is
water. But on land, if you don't have fur, what are
means of protection, and what was ours. Can you Marc,
or anybody can shed a little light on that.

Thanks in advance Mario

[John Roth]

"Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
message news:3d5e5086$0$190$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>
> "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> schreef in bericht
> news:442d7042.0208161847.58e03885@posting.google.com...
> > "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...
> >
> > > Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the
> > > standard Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the
> > > sequence fur -> fat ->
clothing.
>
> It does not. For the X-th time: SC fat & fur have nothing to
> do with each other:
> - some mammals have fur & fat, eg, mammoths, most pinnipeds,
> - some have none, eg, elephants,
> - most mammals only have only fur, no fat,
> - many marine mammals have only fat, no fur.

A quick check on a seal site shows you're quite correct on
that, and it does make sense from a thermo-insulation
viewpoint.

> As long as people don't get this, I'm afraid they'll never
> understand
much
> about AAT.
>
> AFAIK, in short, comparative data suggest fur is mostly for
> thermo-insulation in air & protection, and SC fat is mostly
> for energy
deposit
> & thermo-insulation in water.

Well, yes. Simple thermodynamics would suggest the insulation
properties. It's nice that nature agrees with the engineering!

John Roth
>
> Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
> http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
>
>

[John Roth]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B983D076.182C0%rkeeter@earthlink.net...
> in article ulsdk6lq5b988b@news.supernews.com, John Roth at
> johnroth@ameritech.net wrote on 8/17/02 6:45 AM:
>
> >
> > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> wrote in message
> > news:442d7042.0208161847.58e03885@posting.google.com...
> >> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...
> >>
> >>> Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the
> >>> standard Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the
> >>> sequence fur -> fat ->
> > clothing.
> >>
> >> I don't get that. I've always considered that hairy ->
> >> naked/ no sc layer -> sc layer happenned simulataneously
> >> actually.
> >
> > The -> meant a noticable amount of time in each phase.
> >
> >
> >>> One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a
> >>> place in the standard evolutionary lineage to put the
> >>> million years or so for
the
> >>> aquatic episode.
> >>
> >> Why does it have to be a specific and relatively short
> >> 'phase'? Why not a long term but mild link with a
> >> waterside habitat?
> >
> > I'm not thinking 'short.' As far as time goes, I'm
> > thinking a m year
or
> > so. However, that seems to be old line Darwinian thinking
> > - a lot of the more recent evidence seems to confirm
> > punctuated equilibrium.
> >
>
> Even in Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" scenario, each
> of these
phases
> would almost certainly have lasted for some considerable
> time, right?

I presume so. One does need the time for the adaptation to
transfer to the entire population.

> > As far as a mild link goes, the key word is 'mild.' Shore
> > dwellers that spend time in both environments have either
> > fur or fat (do any have both?) depending on which
> > environment is primary, and which is secondary. "Mild"
> > implies that the water environment is secondary, which
> > implies that the species would keep fur as the insulator.

> Sea lions and fur seals, polar bears, otters, beavers,
> muskrat,
fishercats,
> run the whole gamut of "aquatic adaptiion" to the point of
> "loosing
legs"
> and developing flippers, yet all have fur. That would at
> least imply
to me
> that the loss of fur (like the cetaceans) would have to be
> somewhere
out
> there beyond seq lions in terms of the aquatic adaptation
> process.

Loosing fur basically means that the species couldn't spend a
significant time out of water, except in rather restricted
environments. That's simply due to the thermodynamics.

Mark V. points out that seals, sea lions and walruses have
both subcutanious fat and fur. This entire group seems to be
fairly similar.

Are fishercats aquatics at all? The couple of web pages I
looked at said not, even though the name would suggest it.
They live on land and seem to prefer land animals as prey. The
rest of the species you mention seem to live on land, and
catch prey in the water.

> >>> Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty
> >>> with the notion of an active savanah dweller using
> >>> subcutanious fat as an insulator. The more activity, the
> >>> more heat has to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood
> >>> vessel mechanism is not that good for land dwellers. The
> >>> picture simply does not compute.
> >>
> >> Sc fat, nakedness and sweat cooling make absolutely no
> >> sense on the savannh. As Marc says, that idea is just
> >> "rrrrrubbish!"
> >
> > No arguement there.
>
> Oh, perhaps maybe just a small arguement. SC fat,
> nakedness, sweat
cooling
> are characteristics that MIGHT come about by several
> different
mechanisms.
> SC fat might well be a "savanna penalty" for an adult but an
absolutely
> necessary characteristic for an infant, not for cooling but
> for the continued exo-uterine development of the brain. It
> CUOLD be just a
calorie
> and protien resevoir to supply that last little bit of
> "rapid
development)
> that if executed in the uterus would make the birth process
impossible! The
> point being not that this IS the incontrovertable reason for
> SC fat in
human
> infants, but its a POSSIBILITY.

Makes some sense as a possibility.

> Nakedness might be as you have suggested just an adaptation
> to clothing. If ancient hominids had extensive fur
pelts
> there would have been a "lower limit" on their temperature
"adaptability",
> i.e. they could put on additional clothes when the
> temperature got
cold, but
> could only strip to the fur layer when it got hot. With the
> clothing supplanting the fur in the cold environment and the
> fur being a
penalty when
> it got hot. . . . . Again, not saying that its the
> ABSOLUTE answer,
just a
> possibility.

Again, that scenario makes sense. It implies that the fur
vanished after clothing came in. Unfortunately, neither gets
preserved over a long enough time frame to say with any
assurance.

> Finally there is the proposition of sweat cooling being
> incompatible with the savanna. . . . . . Ever ridden a
> horse on a
summer
> day? Is the horse incontrovertably a plains/savanna animal?
> Does the
horse
> sweat? How about camels? (reduced sweat of course, but does
> a camel sweat?)

Both horses and camels are large animals (square / cube law)
that can occasionally move fast, so they need some method of
dumping excess heat. Can a human being run down a horse. You
betcha - if the human is in very good condition and sticks to
it. The horse will run away every time - until it finally
gives up out of heat exhaustion.

> Again its "possibilities". . . . . . . Take all of the
> possibilities,
and
> assign "likelihoods" based on extant examples. For
> example, of all
large
> savanna/plains animals how many actually HAVE lost the
> ability to
sweat? If
> 10 out of 10 considered have lost the ability, it would
> appear that
sweating
> is a mammal characteristic adaptation to savanna life, just
> as is the
case
> with webbed feet and an aquatic lifestyle. If 10 of 10 large
savanna/plains
> animals retain the ability to sweat (in spite of the
> relative scarcity
of
> water in the savanna vs the forest/jungle/swamp) then it
> means nothing
in
> terms of a "savanna" adaptation. Pick out the
> characteristics and
multiply
> out the probabilities! 8-)

Based on a totally inadequate sample, it seems that size and
average temperature has more to do with it than habitat. I'd
expect that smaller animals, and those living in colder
climates, wouldn't have evaporative cooling. Larger animals,
and those in warmer climates, especially those with active
life styles, could have it as an emergency overheating
protective mechanism.
>
> > The point that most of the people in favor of it miss is
> > that we have "no" current examples of that adaptation.
> > All of the current examples (number of species that
> > exhausts the
sample:
> > 1) use clothing as the insulator.
> >
>
> That does pose the problem. Of course the arch enemy of
> theories in
general
> is facts! 8-)
>
> REgards bk

John Roth

[Deowll]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ulstfmbot1hr76@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@village.uunet.be> wrote in
> message news:3d5e5086$0$190$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> >
> > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@riverapes.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:442d7042.0208161847.58e03885@posting.google.com...
> > > "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:<ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com>...
> > >
> > > > Subcutanious fat is clearly an issue, however, the
> > > > standard Aquatic Scenario is out. It implies the
> > > > sequence fur -> fat ->
> clothing.
> >
> > It does not. For the X-th time: SC fat & fur have nothing
> > to do with each other:
> > - some mammals have fur & fat, eg, mammoths, most
> > pinnipeds,
> > - some have none, eg, elephants,
> > - most mammals only have only fur, no fat,
> > - many marine mammals have only fat, no fur.
>
> A quick check on a seal site shows you're quite correct on
> that, and it does make sense from a thermo-insulation
> viewpoint.
>

Fur seal. Look them up. Look at the weight on the pinnipeds
that don't have fur and check real careful because a lot of
the ones you think don't do!

> > As long as people don't get this, I'm afraid they'll never
> > understand
> much
> > about AAT.
> >
> > AFAIK, in short, comparative data suggest fur is mostly
> > for thermo-insulation in air & protection, and SC fat is
> > mostly for energy
> deposit
> > & thermo-insulation in water.
>
> Well, yes. Simple thermodynamics would suggest the
> insulation properties. It's nice that nature agrees with the
> engineering!
>
> John Roth
> >
> > Marc Verhaegen http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
> > http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Mario Petr]

"John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ult5uplaqem019@news.supernews.com...
> Actually, let's consider language. It's a truism that if
> you ask the wrong question, you'll get bizzare answers. If
> you manage to ask the right question, the answers come
> thick and fast.
>
> The way I define language is: "The capacity for transfering
> a usable version of one entity's internal experiance to
> another, by coding it, linearizing it, extenalizing it, and
> then decoding
> it."
>
> If someone else said it first, I've got no arguement. I'm
> not a scholar in that sense.
>
> Notice that this doesn't restrict itself to speach. A bee's
> waggle dance to transfer the location of a source of nectar
> is language in this sense, albeit a very restricted form.
>
> Now add the fact that gorillas and chimpanzees can be taught
> a primative version of sign language. That absolutely fits
> my definition of language, no quibbles whatsoever.
>
> This leads to a couple of possibilities. One is that the
> common ancestor of g/c/h had language to that level, and
> that the gorilla and chimpanzees simply quit using it. Or
> maybe they are still using it, but we haven't figured it out
> yet because of our preconceptions of what they can do.
>
> The other is that the common ancestor didn't have this
> capability, and that both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineage
> developed it independently, and then quit using it.
>
> So the simplest answer is that the common g/c/h ancestor had
> sign language, and used it. John Roth

The only assumption I can pick up from all this is
that you cannot tie language with brain power. It
looks to me loke any animal can communicate with this
simple, digitalized form of communication. It helps
with transfering simple messages to big number of
subjects. OTOH, vocal ability is essential for
communication in water, where your body is submerged,
you are strained by water, so you cannot turn fast to
see all around you, and you cannot hear hush sounds
because a sound of waves are too loud. And a smell of
sea is too strong. IOW, you cannot use your senses for
alerts, and loud voice is the only mean. -- Mario

[Deowll]

"Mario Petrinovic" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in
message news:ajm86k$7qq8$1@as201.hinet.hr...
> "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:ult5uplaqem019@news.supernews.com...
> > Actually, let's consider language. It's a truism that if
> > you ask the wrong question, you'll get bizzare answers. If
> > you manage to ask the right question, the answers come
> > thick and fast.
> >
> > The way I define language is: "The capacity for
> > transfering a usable version of one entity's internal
> > experiance to another, by coding it, linearizing it,
> > extenalizing it, and then decoding
> > it."
> >
> > If someone else said it first, I've got no arguement. I'm
> > not a scholar in that sense.
> >
> > Notice that this doesn't restrict itself to speach. A
> > bee's waggle dance to transfer the location of a source
> > of nectar is language in this sense, albeit a very
> > restricted form.
> >
> > Now add the fact that gorillas and chimpanzees can be
> > taught a primative version of sign language. That
> > absolutely fits my definition of language, no quibbles
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > This leads to a couple of possibilities. One is that the
> > common ancestor of g/c/h had language to that level, and
> > that the gorilla and chimpanzees simply quit using it. Or
> > maybe they are still using it, but we haven't figured it
> > out yet because of our preconceptions of what they can do.
> >
> > The other is that the common ancestor didn't have this
> > capability, and that both the gorilla and chimpanzee
> > lineage developed it independently, and then quit
> > using it.
> >
> > So the simplest answer is that the common g/c/h ancestor
> > had sign language, and used it. John Roth
>
> The only assumption I can pick up from all this is
> that you cannot tie language with brain power. It
> looks to me loke any animal can communicate with
> this simple, digitalized form of communication. It
> helps with transfering simple messages to big number
> of subjects. OTOH, vocal ability is essential for
> communication in water, where your body is
> submerged, you are strained by water, so you cannot
> turn fast to see all around you, and you cannot hear
> hush sounds because a sound of waves are too loud.
> And a smell of sea is too strong. IOW, you cannot
> use your senses for alerts, and loud voice is the
> only mean. -- Mario
>
>
Cuttle fish and squid seem to use other means. I wouldn't care
to even try and guess about how much data they can
communicate. We aren't wired right to even begin to
understand.

Fish have a line of pressure sensors that are very sensitive
and sharks can pick up on electrical impulses scents or
tastes, magnetic lines and maybe some things we haven't even
thought to check on yet.

Sound works well under water but humans don't do a good job of
making sounds under water and our ears are well adjusted to
the medium either nor are our eyes.

[Mario Petr]

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2iw79.32372$EP2.1544779@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>
> "Mario Petrinovic" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in
> message news:ajlskn$7ag0$1@as201.hinet.hr...
> > "John Roth" <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> > news:ulq4tccih0bh82@news.supernews.com...
> > > One difficulty (among others) is that there isn't a
> > > place in the standard evolutionary lineage to put the
> > > million years or so for the aquatic episode.
> >
> > I would suggest very long aquatic phase ending
> > 10mya. If we was bipedal enough than, to be able
> > to manipulate fire, there is no need for us to
> > adapt for new environments, but instead modify
> > existing jungle by burning it. It would give us
> > environment we like to live in, fringe of jungle,
> > with a lot of shade (maybe India type of
> > environment). So, that implies that we wouldn't be
> > forced to change ourselves much since our aquatic
> > phase since we would modify environment to our
> > liking, and not modify us to environment. Some
> > variations could be possible, though. While
> > Australopithecines clade would maybe live more in
> > trees, our human clade could be one smaller branch
> > living all those years, still maybe on some sandy
> > shore, with no so much food around, hence forced
> > to use tools to get food.
> >
> You are going to need to exclude Homo habilis as an ancestor
> you know. It was surprisingly well adapted to arboreal life.
> The South African apiths or at least some of them seem to
> have been skilled swingers so that kicks them out. Lucy and
> her kind also seem to be at least as at home in the trees as
> on the ground and what do you have left?

Thanks deowll (: )) for taking care. I don't see
Australopithecines as our direct ancestors. When I
talked about aquatic phase ended 10mya, I meant our
main aquatic phase from which hominids emerged. It
could be that our human clade continued to live on a
sea coast untill emerging of erectus (as I said),
and was only a smaller branch. Regarding habilis I
also thought of him as living close to ourselves,
but not being us.

> > > Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty
> > > with the notion of an active savanah dweller using
> > > subcutanious fat as an insulator. The more activity, the
> > > more heat has to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood
> > > vessel mechanism is not that good for land dwellers. The
> > > picture simply does not compute.
> >
> > So, not so active savanna dweller (just like
> > today) using "fire stick farming" manipulation of
> > environment (just like today)?
> >
> So the use of fire goes back to when?

It could be that we were bipedal, or maybe
semi-bipedal before we started manipulating with
fire. If we were semi-bipedal, we became bipedal by
using fire.

> > > At this point in the discussion, I'm awaiting some
> > > researcher doing a genetic analysis on the difference
> > > that allows h. sapiens to grow a layer of subcutanious
> > > fat, and g. gorilla not (assuming that's even true,
> > > which I'm assuming at the moment.) It should be possible
> > > to date it.
> > >
> > > Remember that the original work on the Aquatic Scenario
> > > was done before we had any of the genetic information in
> > > hand. At this point, it seems like the route of prudence
> > > is to add that information, rather than continue with
> > > generating unsupported theories. John Roth
> >
> > I have a little complaint here. I have seen enough
> > bright men waiting for genetics to reveal them
> > secrets of life. Do you really think those Lego
> > cubes can do that. State of genetics today
> > remainds me on state of chemistry in Middle Ages
> > (alchemia). Someday probably this will be a great
> > science, but it will not turn coal into gold.
> > Waiting for that to happen could turn up a waste
> > of time. Life is much more complicated than that,
> > and you need to understand its processes. No
> > mathematic formula can do that (although can help
> > somehow). Genetics was just invented, and as
> > people are discovering it more and more, they are
> > staring to find out that most of their initual
> > presumptions were wrong. IMO, locking your
> > thoughts into boundaries of those presumptions was
> > clearly bad move (which will need a lot of efforth
> > to wipe out its bad consequences on somebodies
> > thinking process, if this could be possible at
> > all).
> >
> But the data they are producing is getting much better which
> fogs the picture no end. That always happens just before
> things start to clear up.

IMO, things already started to clear up, and they are
starting to show that all things before were simply
overstretched, and misunderstood.

Regards Mario

[Bob Keeter]

in article ulsvrge84ju2d6@news.supernews.com, John Roth at
johnroth@ameritech.net wrote on 8/17/02 11:56 AM:
SNIPPAGE. . .

>>
>> Even in Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" scenario, each of
>> these phases would almost certainly have lasted for some
>> considerable time, right?
>>
> I presume so. One does need the time for the adaptation to
> transfer to the entire population.
>

OK. Then lets hazard a guess. With a "generation" being
perhaps as small as 15-17 years, how many generations
would you presume that it would take for an adaptation to
spread through a relatively stable (in terms of total
numbers) population of lets just say 15,000? I'd even
allow a very drastic, very harsh selection process, i.e.
let the total population without the "mutation" fall by as
much as 10 % per year.

I think that the "formula" might show a major drop off in
population then a rise as the "adapteds" started to
proliferate. But still MANY generations, with plenty of
opportunity for additional mutations/adaptations if the
environmental stimulus remained constant. Right? 8-)

>
>>> As far as a mild link goes, the key word is 'mild.' Shore
>>> dwellers that spend time in both environments have either
>>> fur or fat (do any have both?) depending on which
>>> environment is primary, and which is secondary. "Mild"
>>> implies that the water environment is secondary, which
>>> implies that the species would keep fur as the insulator.
>>>
>> Sea lions and fur seals, polar bears, otters, beavers,
>> muskrat, fishercats, run the whole gamut of "aquatic
>> adaptiion" to the point of "loosing legs" and developing
>> flippers, yet all have fur. That would at least imply to me
>> that the loss of fur (like the cetaceans) would have to be
>> somewhere out there beyond seq lions in terms of the
>> aquatic adaptation process.
>>
> Loosing fur basically means that the species couldn't spend
> a significant time out of water, except in rather restricted
> environments. That's simply due to the thermodynamics.
>

So, loosing fur would mean a much more "focused" aquatic
adaptation that even a seal? In other words in this logic an
"aquatic ape" would need to spend even more time "all wet"
than a seal to justify a loss of fur? Hmmmmmm. Makes me wonder
if even the most Aquatic of the soggy apes would manage that
much time in the water. (and remember, its in vogue now to
talk about the "wading ape" where some significant part of the
body is out of the water MOST of the time!!) Somehow I feel
the swamp growing soft here! 8-))

Could there be quicksand in the area?

> Mark V. points out that seals, sea lions and walruses have
> both subcutanious fat and fur. This entire group seems to be
> fairly similar.

Yep, and so thoroughly aquatic adapted that some species
rarely even come ashore except to breed and sleep
(occasionaly). Now this sounds like a LOT of time in the
water, and it is! Yet they retained the fur. They have had
enough of the old evolutionary selection proces to have lost
(or all practical purposes) the back two legs usually a marker
for mammals in general, turn their hands/paws/feet into very
good flippers (quite a bit beyond the basic webbing!), yet
retain fur! Could it be that the fur is the LAST thing to go
in terms of terrestrial "features" when a mammal goes back
into the water?

If so, it would be VERY interesting to be pointed at the
primate fossil that even hints at an aquatic adaptation
"deeper" than a sea lion's, that could be used to support the
idea that "hairlessness" has anything to do with
aquatic-ness! 8-))

> Are fishercats aquatics at all? The couple of web pages I
> looked at said not, even though the name would suggest it.
> They live on land and seem to prefer land animals as prey.
> The rest of the species you mention seem to live on land,
> and catch prey in the water.

Well, around here the only ones I see are swimming around in
the pond like big fat otters. I do know that they have a
definite "taste" for porcupines and a very novel way of
getting dinner. I believe that otherwise they are decided
omnivores that will eat just about whatever they can lay their
paws on. The one "oddball" in the lot was of course the
beaver. He lives right in the water in little artificial
covered islands called lodges and stalks his prey, usually a
nice juicy birch or aspen on dry land! 8-)) All aquatic to one
degree or another, and at least by my observation of
footprints in the sand, even the fisher cat would seem to have
reasonably well webbed feet.

So, lots of hair, webbed feet, observably aquatic not bipedal
and no significant SC fat (as is found in pinepeds and
cetaceans!), AND plenty of time to develop those additional
traits that supposedly mark the "aquatic ape" if those traits
really did apply to an amphibious mammal.

8-)) Hmmmmmmmmm. .. . . .. . .. .

>
>>>>> Another is that I'm having a great deal of difficulty
>>>>> with the notion of an active savanah dweller using
>>>>> subcutanious fat as an insulator. The more activity, the
>>>>> more heat has to be dumped, and the fat / surface blood
>>>>> vessel mechanism is not that good for land dwellers. The
>>>>> picture simply does not compute.
>>>>>
>>>> Sc fat, nakedness and sweat cooling make absolutely no
>>>> sense on the savannh. As Marc says, that idea is just
>>>> "rrrrrubbish!"
>>>>
>>> No arguement there.
>>>
>> Oh, perhaps maybe just a small arguement. SC fat,
>> nakedness, sweat cooling are characteristics that MIGHT
>> come about by several different mechanisms. SC fat might
>> well be a "savanna penalty" for an adult but an absolutely
>> necessary characteristic for an infant, not for cooling but
>> for the continued exo-uterine development of the brain. It
>> CUOLD be just a calorie and protien resevoir to supply that
>> last little bit of "rapid development) that if executed in
>> the uterus would make the birth process impossible! The
>> point being not that this IS the incontrovertable reason
>> for SC fat in human infants, but its a POSSIBILITY.
>>
> Makes some sense as a possibility.
>

Without HARD FACTS one has to evaluate theories against those
possibilities, er. . . . make that PROBABILITIES. The theory
that requires the least "magic" wins, unless of course it has
progressed from scientific theory into a "true religion",
whereupon probabilities are immaterial! 8-) Of course religion
aint science either! 8-)))) But. . . . .to each his own. I'll
just stick with science.

>> Nakedness might be as you have suggested just an adaptation
>> to clothing. If ancient hominids had extensive fur pelts
>> there would have been a "lower limit" on their temperature
>> "adaptability", i.e. they could put on additional clothes
>> when the temperature got cold, but could only strip to the
>> fur layer when it got hot. With the clothing supplanting
>> the fur in the cold environment and the fur being a penalty
>> when it got hot. . . . . Again, not saying that its the
>> ABSOLUTE answer, just a possibility.
>>
> Again, that scenario makes sense. It implies that the fur
> vanished after clothing came in. Unfortunately, neither gets
> preserved over a long enough time frame to say with any
> assurance.
>

OOOOOPPPPSsss! Not so fast there big guy! IF ancient hominids
were aquatic, and specifically aquatic in terms of liking to
much on sedges and such in still muddy water, THAT would be
the ideal place to preserve soft tissue. Pteradactyls,
presumed to be fish eaters, provide several interesting
fossils preserving the webbing between their big finger and
their bodies, even to the point of preserving the very fine,
very short "hair" that apparently covered their bodies. So. .
. .might be hard to have it both ways. Fossilization would not
preserve hair, unless the species is closely associated with
marshy, silt-filled swampy areas, and in spite of this no
ancient hominids are preseerved in nice silty shale with hair
impressions. Sorta feels a big like an oxymoron doesnt it! 8