The real story of human evolution by SignyM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM was kind enough to be very brief and encapsulate just a few of the many arguments around. There are many, many other seperate observations.

To address a more recent one, it was proposed that humans went from brachiating tree-dwellers directly to semi-aquatic fresh water dwellers. The existance of crab-eating Macaques (Macaca fascicularis) was cited to make that argument. However, there are reasons to believe the human story is based on salt-water adaptation, and specifically island dwelling.

One that I've been interested in is the relative need for and adaptation to different mineral profiles between humans and chimpanzees. (Salt-water and fresh-water mineral profiles differ significantly.)

The most dramatic is the tolerance for salt, specifically the salt sodium chloride. (Technically may different ionic compounds in combination are callled 'salts', NaCl is just one of many.)

Some of you may have read about the recent 'dramatic' breakthrough in treating cystic fibrosis. It's NOT a patented drug - in fact, there is no patent on it at all. It is cheap, it is easy, it is extrememly effective AND it is widely available. It is (TA DAH) inhaling a salt-solution aerosol. Why that is significant is that the whole genetic mechanism for chloride transport is HIGHLY conserved across the animal kingdom. The biggest obstacle to cystic fibrosis research has been the lack of available animal subjects, trying to find any animal with any mutation in the cystic fibrosis gene. Humans OTOH have over 2,000 separate mutations at last count. If humans evolved with salt-laden air, mutations in the gene would have been survivable, leading to accumulated genetic variation.

When it comes to diet, experimentally, one 'could' experiment with people to see if humans have a dietary salt tolerance. One piece of evidence that indicates they don't is the link between high salt intake and hypertention. However, high salt intake is usually linked to highly processed and/or preserved foods, and a lack of potassium in the diet (from fresh whole foods). Several articles I've read link hypertention to low relative potassium intake. Over a population, the lower the potassium intake, the higher the blood pressure. Additionally, the treatment for hypertension has shifted from salt reduction alone to DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertention) which empahsizes fresh fruits and vegetables (high in potassium, and from green vegetables, magnesium), and is low saturated fat. In other clinical studies, low blood potassium linked to hypertention was treated in-hospital with potassium infusions. Roughly 10% of patients were refractory, and needed additional magnesium in order to treat low blood potassium. (Magnesium helps regulate blood potassium to maintian acceptable levels.) In my own family, when people have sarted to have their blood pressure creep up, eating or supplementing with additional potassium have been an effective non-drug method to bring it back down.

The information looks to me that it is trending to a high dietary sodium tolerance in the presence of adequate relative potassium and magnesium intake.

Humans also lack a 'salt appetite' which regulates how much salt one consumes. That is suggestive to me that that salt satiation signal was turned off in a high salt environment, since food (seaweed, crustaceans, shellfish, fish) came with a high salt burden that had to be tolerated.

Humans also have a relatively high iodine requirement. I think this speaks for itself. You simply don't find goiter in chimpanzees but you do in humans, as well as iodine-deficient cretinism and retardation, in areas where humans and chimpnazees co-exist.

Quote:
Iodine deficiency is, by a large margin, the most common preventable cause of mental retardation in the world. Endemic iodine deficiency remains a substantial public health problem in many parts of the world, including many areas in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys /endocrine/ thyroid/thyroid_preg.html

When it comes to EPA/ DHA (fish oil) requirements, for many decades it was known that breast-fed babies had faster and better brain developemnt than formula-fed babies, and ultimately had higher IQs. Recent studies have shown that DHA in breast milk (but absent in formula) accounted for most of the difference. European manufactuers started supplementing formual with DHA over 15 years ago, US manufacturers about 6 years ago. And I think most people know that DHA supplementation is just as good as standard medicines for ADD/ADHD, depression and other 'soft' neurological disorders. (Those not grossly anatomical or biochemical like lipid-storage diseases.)

Anyway, I have a lot more to write, including why I believe humans evolved on an island, but time marches on. Perhaps later.

Some of us have geeky hobbies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:27 AM

HAZE

Speaking from a personal perceptive when looking at the human being I see a creature evolved to walk. We may not be fast runners but we do have massive endurance. We can just walk and walk over very long distances. You have to question why such a treat would evolve in a creature that dowelled in coast areas or on an Island. We seem to me to be a creature perfectly suited to the vast flat plains of Africa.

Just my opinion of coarse.

--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, walking bipedally is very efficient. Humans can outwalk a horse. But it may not be much of a survival strategy by itself. Plus, while walking may explain bipedalism, it doesn't explain the other unique human features and dietary requirements.

Rue- you an I share the same geeky hobby! When our daughter was born w/ a massive brain bleed in 1988, I consulted with the Los Angeles Regional Center to get the best advice. Among other things, breast feeding versus formula came up. The nurse told me in almost a conspiratorial whisper (looking carefully up and down the hallway first) that human breast milk has "something" in it that promotes brain growth. She spelled it out for me, I wrote it down: docosahexanoic acid. That was new research back then, near voodoo-magic. Now, it's widely recognized as a human requirement and sold as "molecularly distilled fish oil"! We've come a long way.

So, nutritionally, what do YOU think the "ideal" human diet would be?

PS_ I know there's a lot of research that shows DHA and EPA stabilize mood. I sometimes wonder if inland cultures - you know, desert-dwellers, jungle-dwellers and Senator Brownback (from Kansas) would be more reasonable if they ate more fish. :wry smile:

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Haze,
I suspect that bipedalism allowed humans to return to savannahs (vs return to the trees), but the switch to bipedalism would have been hazardous. Humans just don't book on two legs.

And as SignyM mentioned, there are other physical, physiological, and biochemical features to account for:
evenly distributed subcutaneous fat (some account for that as a by-product of the need to lay down a large amounts fat for neurological development),
hairlessness (still a stumper; many many theories abound the most recent is to show a lack of parasites),
breath-holding (tongues not tied to the floor of the mouth, able to be moved back to close off upper respiratory passages),
and others.

It is possible that human proportion changed to allow full-time bepedalism, but that locking knees came later.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:02 AM

CHRISISALL

Here we are, as usual, with Signy and Rue allowing facts and evidence to cloud their belief system...

I believe in evolution as told by the Flying Spaghetti Monster Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM,

I'm glad you asked !

One thing I didn't metion earlier was that humans have a high copper requirement relative to zinc (an oceanic ratio, not a terrestrial one). The best sources of copper (ratioed to zinc) are fish, shellfish, fruits and nuts, and possibly seaweed and other salt-water algae.

So, assuming as sea-side evolution:

low carb - seaweed is high in vitamins and minerals and soluble fiber, but low in carbohydrates
fresh - for K and Mg to offset Na
good source of iodine and copper
good source of DHA (and EPA)
sunshine (as skin type allows) for D, the 'sunshine' vitamin
constantly eating small amounts of food (not gorging then starving like lions)
chronic low-level activity

It's too bad that oceans are so polluted that everything comes contaminated with PCBs, dioxins, methylmercury, PDBEs and other seriously nasty chemicals. (In fact orcas that beach themselves and die have to be disposed of as toxic waste due to the high concentrations of these chemicals.)

Eat fish and shellfish known to be lower in contaminants. For example, farmed salmon is highly contaminated, wild salmon not as much. But a lot of fresh farmed salmon is sold as wild. So since only wild salmon can be canned (farmed salmon turns to mush) canned salmon is a better salmon bet.

Include fresh fruit and vegetables, and/or supplement with potassium and magnesium. Eat nuts which are a good source of copper, magnesium and healthful fats. Eat seaweed (good stuff! at least, I like it).

Buy organic grass-fed meat and poultry. Microorganisms in the dirt produce B12, some DHA etc, which are then concentrated in meat and milk.

Get lots of soluble fiber. (Seaweed is a natural source.)

Eat small meals often.

Avoid grains.

Don't worry about salt.

With apologies for clouded thinking.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I believe in evolution as told by the Flying Spaghetti Monster Chrisisall

Hey, that's funny, 'cause I believe in spaghetti too! Especially with Parmesan cheese!

But then, I read Rue's post on nutrition and now I'm not only gusatorially but also theologically conflicted!

Rue: I'm a big believer in whole food. There is a list of supplements as long as my arm (well, okay, maybe not THAT long, but still pretty long) that looked good in their native state only to prove harmful- or at least ineffective- when isolated: beta-carotene, genistein, vitamin E, lutien etc.

So seeing as my family barely tolerates fish (Kid is okay with shrimp and SO is okay with orange roughy, cod, and haddock- and never the twain shall meet on salmon!) is fish oil and krill oil a reasonable substitute? I DO try to serve fish once a week, but seaweed- ugh!

Also- and off-topic from evolution- do you think cinnamon and turmeric are all they're cracked up to be? And where is the evolutionary advantage to alcohol?

Okay, strike that last question- I don't care. I'll drink it anwyay!

---------------------------------
I'll go for free beer too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM,

There is some indication that additional benefits accrue from fish rather than just oil. However, most studies deal with fish oil, as it's easier to quantify the dose. So fish oil specifically is validated by research. I would go with krill oil if it's not too big a ding in the budget.

Cinnamon and turmeric -

I'm more familiar with the benefits of cinnamon as researchers have been more focused on isolating and testing its specific components. For example, cinnamon oil (fat soluble component) kills mouth germs associated with gingivitis which is associated with premature birth, low birth weight and heart disease. It also keeps E coli from anchoring to the bladder wall, and seems to slow growth of 'killer' E coli O157:H7. A water soluble cinnamon compound acts like insulin, helps existing insulin and normalizes blood-fat profiles. It also lowers blood pressure, thought to be due to its anti-oxidant activity which enhances NO (nitric oxide) persistance which relaxes blood vessels.

(As an aside, it kills mosquito larvae in ppm concentrations, making it an extraordinarily non-toxic pesticide.)

I've read some on turmeric, but not enough to get a feel for the direction of the research and results.

As for alcohol, now that's a topic for discussion in a pub somewhere.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:21 AM

HAZE

There is also the problem of why would a coastal animal that relies on the catching of sea life for nourishment need such vast brain power? In particular our capacity for entering the mind of our prey and anticipating its actions. This is a trait unique to humans amongst all other predators.

There is form of hunting still practised in Africa where by a lone hunter will peruse a prey item, this prey item is faster than the hunter is but the hunter has more endurance. The enters the prey items mind, anticipates it actions and movements and chases it relentlessly for hours and hours, until finally the prey dies of exhaustion. In this I see the original form of human hunting , and the reason for our big brain and our two legs.

Another question is why would a coastal animal need to be so adept and throwing things? We are incredibly accurate at throwing objects. Ever thrown a piece of paper into the bin from across the room? I’m firmly of the belief we evolved opposable thumbs so that we could better manipulate the stones we true to detour predators and startle or attack prey.

In short I’m still convinced we evolved in African flat land and moved to the coasts later.

--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now that veers to the more general topic of 'human nature' and why evolution is such a hot topic in the US. People have beliefs about human nature in order to support their view of society, and then look for evidence to support those beliefs.

"catching of sea life for nourishment need such vast brain power? In particular our capacity for entering the mind of our prey and anticipating its actions"

That is not uniquely human. In fact it's not unique to hunters, as prey anticipate their hunters as well.

Putting that aside for now (but keeping it open for later), I'm curious why you assume hunting was the dominant driver in evolution. With the exception of tundra dwellers, peoples that hunt primarily live off what they gather and/or scavenge. Roughly 80% of nutrition comes from gathering. So why would hunting be so central to human survival that it would drive evolution?

The other assumption in your argument is that the only advantage of brain power is for hunting. Remembering good food v bad food, good areas v bad areas, and all the different way to gather/hunt shore food (seaweed, crabs, clams, mussels, urchins, small fish, birds, eggs), to store and carry water, in other words, to generalize food sources and tool use, would be an advantage.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:32 PM

FLETCH2

I personally like the aquatic ape theory but in support of Haze's argument, we are VERY good at throwing things instinctively. One of our neighbours had concreted over most of their back yard and would "encourage" their pet rabbits to go through the fence and graze on our garden. I came back once after walking the dog to find a rabbit on the lawn. The dog started off and fearing for the rabbit (which hadn't seen the dog yet) I picked up a rock and threw it instinctively in the rabbit's direction, actually hitting the thing on the head and stunning it. The dog grabbed it but fortunately the rabbit got away. I wasn't consciously aiming to hit the rabbit, just make a noise nearby so it would start to run before the dog reached it. However, I realise now that I was looking straight at it when I let my subconscious aim the rock. It was an absolutely perfect hit, had the rock been even slightly larger we'd have had rabbit stew... (and irrate neighbours...)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:40 AM

HAZE

What I meant is our capacity to enter the mind of our prey, to think from there perspective, to stand in the middle of field with no physical evidence of where that deer went and still predict/intuit its movements. This IS a unique human trait that no other animal is capable of, to look at anther being and think from ITS point of view. That’s one heck of a hunting tool.

I will admit I might be a bit biased towards the evolutionary “facts” I was thought in school, but the sea ape theory still has some way to go before if convinces me.

--------------------------------------------------
Who do you suppose is in there?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 4:57 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Haze:
I will admit I might be a bit biased towards the evolutionary “facts” I was thought in school, but the sea ape theory still has some way to go before if convinces me.

Yeah, the “sea ape theory” is a little hard to swallow, but it grows on you after a little while. It does seem to fit the story. I’m leery of all of it, personally. It’s all very speculative, even the “sea ape theory” is probably better referred to as a “sea ape hypothesis,” but it does seem to fit quite nicely in place.

As far as hunting is concerned, I think it makes sense that hunting could have spurred human intellect. Apes that were simply interested in foraging and staying away from snow leopards and saber-toothed tigers would remain in the trees or perhaps grow very large on the ground, but apes who were interested in actually competing with these animals for food would find themselves at a horrible disadvantage as the leopards can outrun, out-track and out-kill prey. So it makes since to think that humans began using their only two advantages, speech and tool-use, which at the time may not have been much of an advantage, but over time speech developed into language and complex communication of multifaceted plans and tool-use became complex compound weapons.

I think it is possibly that both the sea ape and the savannah theory are correct. If for instance a strand of ape evolved physiologically in a wet environment, only to have that wet environment dry up and leave behind a dry dangerous world were humans then need to compete for food, where intellectual evolution took place. There’s no reason physical and intellectual evolution need necessarily occur concurrently?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 5:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I suspect that the transition went something like this: Tool use was perfected while cracking lobsters, mussels and other shellfish, and possibly bringing down sea-birds. The same tools could easily be used to crack bones for marrow- giving humans an ecological niche only shared by hyenas, and also giving humans a rich source of some of the fats and vitamins they needed for survival. (There is evidence of active human bone-scavenging in Africa in the form of bones showing tool-fractures and marrow extraction.) Given this unique and unassailable toe-hold on dry land, humans could then have progressed to hunting. I don't think the process was concurrent as much as successive.

But RUE- you said something that you didn't support afterwards. I get the evidence for ocean/ seaside evolution, but why an ISLAND?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 7:23 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But RUE- you said something that you didn't support afterwards. I get the evidence for ocean/ seaside evolution, but why an ISLAND?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

If I might hazard a guess? Evolutionary theory seems to need an isolated population that develops such that once that isolation is ended that population can no longer interbreed with the original species. The Aquatic Ape hypothesis would be best served if a group of homolids became seperated from the more common tree dwelling kind and forced to exploit the sea shore for survival. An island would more likely serve for genetic isolation than a shoreline.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 8:50 AM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
But there are many holes in the story of human evolution. No fossils show the transition from quadraped to biped. The process of HOW humans transitioned from hairy, tree-dwelling vegetarians to hairless, savannah-dwelling bipedal scavengers/ gatherer/ hunter ("Man the Hunter") hasn't been satisfactorily explained in common literature.

have you ever read any of Zecharia Stichens books, it isn't common literature, but it does have an explantion that I think could shed somelight on the explanation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
And where is the evolutionary advantage to alcohol?

Alcohol is free of contaminants that cause disease (Alcohol is of course a poison but it effects bacteria and viruses more than it does us). Evolution in action:
White Europeans have a much higher tolerance to Alcohol where the primary means for water purification was distilling in comparison to Oriental Asians, where boiling was the primary means.

One other thing. High intelligence in the animal kingdom is AFAIK only ever found with highly cooperative groups. Specifically the larger and more cooperative the group the more intelligent the animal. It's true this is usually evidenced in hunters since pack behaviours are very useful to predators as it allows the animals to attack prey much larger than themselves, but isn't a necessity.

Point is in the Animal kingdom you can get dumb hunters, but you don’t get dumb cooperative groups.

Edit:

Quote:
Originally posted by Haze:
What I meant is our capacity to enter the mind of our prey, to think from there perspective, to stand in the middle of field with no physical evidence of where that deer went and still predict/intuit its movements. This IS a unique human trait that no other animal is capable of, to look at anther being and think from ITS point of view. That’s one heck of a hunting tool.

Actually no it isn't. Dolphins and even Chimpanzees have shown this to varying degrees, in fact dolphins especially. But again it's not specifically a hunting tool at all.

It's something that we can do largely because of mirror neurons which reside in Broca's area and the inferior parietal cortex in Human brains and the inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule in Monkey brains.

Mirror neurons seem to primarily be concerned with group behaviours, like understanding another individuals motives and learning through imitation. The ability to put yourself in the mind of another creature is more likely to be an adaptation of these latent abilities.

Lone hunters tend too not hunt in a predictive way, they're usually more opportunistic.

Editing the edit:
As a final thought Dolphins are wildly regarded as the second most intelligent animal on the planet, and they live in the sea...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 9:45 AM

MATTCOZ

Found this site that goes into a lot of detail about the failings of the aquatic ape theory.

http://www.aquaticape.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 12:21 PM

DUG

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:
And where is the evolutionary advantage to alcohol?

Alcohol is free of contaminants that cause disease (Alcohol is of course a poison but it effects bacteria and viruses more than it does us). .......

One other point about tolerance to alcohol: vegetable matter ferments in your gut. The human body produces its own hooch; this tolerance may simply be a way of dealing with our vegetable intake. And before you ask, yes. Cows and other herbivores do sometimes like to get drunk. I've seen some birds that would get so smashed on fermented grapes they couldn't fly and would fall off of the fence they landed on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 12:37 PM

Possibly, but the fact is the main method of water purification in the Orient was boiling, in Europe it was fermentation and the amount of Alcohol in a single pint is far more than that produced by the stomach. Also remember that rice ferments pretty well and rice is a staple of the oriental diet.

Quote:
Originally posted by dug:
Cows and other herbivores do sometimes like to get drunk. I've seen some birds that would get so smashed on fermented grapes they couldn't fly and would fall off of the fence they landed on.

Many animals do. If it's not alcohol its some other substance. Some monkeys out in the rainforest (I forget what forest and what species of monkey) will pickup and bite a type of poisonous centipede that squirts it's venom at an attacker. This venom essentially gets them high.

Tigers will lick a type of poisonous plant that makes them high.

Drug taking is fairly common in the animal kingdom.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 1:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I checked out that website. I can't go into detail right now how very wrong it is sicne I'm doing taxes

but I'll give you one example. This website claims that all verterbrates have a diving reflex. Well the answer to that assertion is... no, not really. Just googling on diving+ reflex+ cats+ dogs+ primates led me to this biology site: Biology anamolies by species and in that very long list I found
"BHT21 Human Diving Reflex Unique among Primates"
www.science-frontiers.com/cat-biol.htm
Other sites give me to understand that "diving reflex" can be quantified, and that humans are so quantitatively different from other primates that we deserve special mention.

I also glanced through the section on salt handling and I think the whole discusison is misfocused. But, back to taxes!!

---------------------------------
And cats get high on catnip.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I get to post for a short while.

Fletch2,

we are VERY good at throwing things instinctively

First, what does instinctively mean? I can show (through a long series of facts) that chicks do not 'instinctively' scratch. To be instinctive, it must be something that ALL normal individuals do without practice. So another argument is that people don't 'instinctively' throw things. It starts with a cultural expectation of boys, though not girls. In other countries, the cultural expectation is that boys will kick the ball and block it. In still other countries the expectation is that boys will play with blowguns. And it requires practice to be proficient, only the best become (US) football, basketball or baseball players. Finally, it is as 'instinctive' to catch something as it is to throw something. You'd have a hard time arguing that catching is an important hunting capacity driven by an evolution of hunting.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

There was a symposium back in Toronto a few years back that brought together physiologists, physical anthropologists, biochemists, medical doctors etc specifically to look at human evolution. They concluded - on the basis of the massive requirement for fish oil for normal brain development alone - that humans MUST have evolved by the ocean. That need is so absolute that they could reach no other conclusion.

Re hunting - some chimps (of the Pan troglodytes or 'common chimp' variety) - do hunt successfully. But their tool use is confined to more sedentary food acquisition - fishing for termites, breaking nuts, pounding roots and other tough vegetation; and also using small branches with leaves to swish bugs.

There is some evidence that large brain development came early, and cultural acquisition came later. It's also interesting to note that a new analysis of fairly recent skeletons indicates locking knees came about less than 100,000 years ago.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM AND Fletch2,

Quote:

If I might hazard a guess? Evolutionary theory seems to need an isolated population that develops such that once that isolation is ended that population can no longer interbreed with the original species. The Aquatic Ape hypothesis would be best served if a group of homolids became seperated from the more common tree dwelling kind and forced to exploit the sea shore for survival. An island would more likely serve for genetic isolation than a shoreline.

Yes, that's part of why there would be no man without an island. But there are other lines of evidence.

One is that animals that are not prey tend to breed late and live a long time. If you go up the weight v lifespan graph (bigger animals live longer) there are several excursions. To give a few examples, one is the turtle which is well-protected, one is the island possum (evolved on an island w/out predators for 40,000 years and lives twice as long as the mainland possum), and another is man. (There are others.)

Another line of evidence comes from what you don't see fossil-wise in Africa, and what you do see. There are gaps in the human line that correspond with the times the Horn of Africa was an isolated island. The times when it was re-attached to the mainland show a fair number of human bones that appear to have made some kind of leap.

Neither of these is conclusive but I think they're suggestive.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Citizen,

Hmmmm - you know about mirror neurons? Just what do you do for a living?

I enjoyed your post thoroughly. To your list I would add elephants.

And I completely agree about lone hunters.

While this isn't a disagreement, I wonder if you know much about octopuses and verbal parrots. It seems to me they have an alien intelligence that we can't qualify, especially octopuses.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So anyway, this is somewhat adrift, but I wonder ..... if people eventually accept the idea that humans were ocean-side scavengers and gatherers of little critters, living in cooperative groups; and not MAN THE HUNTER (flare nostrils, thump chest), what does it do to all the rationalizations about why things are supposed to be the way they are? Red of fang and claw, nasty brutish and short, survival of the fittest and all that.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:06 PM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Possibly, but the fact is the main method of water purification in the Orient was boiling, in Europe it was fermentation and the amount of Alcohol in a single pint is far more than that produced by the stomach. Also remember that rice ferments pretty well and rice is a staple of the oriental diet.

Quote:
Originally posted by dug:
Cows and other herbivores do sometimes like to get drunk. I've seen some birds that would get so smashed on fermented grapes they couldn't fly and would fall off of the fence they landed on.

Many animals do. If it's not alcohol its some other substance. Some monkeys out in the rainforest (I forget what forest and what species of monkey) will pickup and bite a type of poisonous centipede that squirts it's venom at an attacker. This venom essentially gets them high.

Tigers will lick a type of poisonous plant that makes them high.

Drug taking is fairly common in the animal kingdom.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

More news from the animal kingdom: Llamas in Peru get a bit of a high by eating coca leaves, grasshoppers jump unusually high when they eat wild marijuana leaves, and elephants tend to seek out fermented ripe fruit for a bit of a buzz.

Do you have any sources for the evolutionary basis of Asians tending to be deficient in alcohol dehydrogenase (enzyme that breaks down alcohol, preferentially ethanol) because what you said is interesting and I'd like to read more about it. Other groups that are also deficient: Ashkenazi Jews and possibly Native Americans and Latin Americans (assuming I'm reading this right). People of Asian descent get kicked in the ass again because they also tend to be deficient in acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.

Evolution is intriguing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
Hmmmm - you know about mirror neurons? Just what do you do for a living?

I first heard about mirror neurons a few years back in a BBC science documentary about Human learning and development. That program also fostered the view that they were used to help people bond.

They did an experiment where subjects would talk to an actor who would try to agree and generally support their views on the various topics. For some subjects the actor would mirror the subject’s mannerisms and others he didn't. After the test the subjects were asked how they got on with the actor. Where he mirrored their mannerisms and posture etc people thought they got on with him far better.

It's something I've noticed myself while people are talking you subconsciously start to mimic to some degree the person you’re talking too. The idea was that this was something else mirror neurons were responsible for. They sound pretty important to Human development learning and in essence what makes us Human so I did some research of my own (that is read stuff, not cut open peoples skulls to probe the grey matter within...)

Quote:
While this isn't a disagreement, I wonder if you know much about octopuses and verbal parrots. It seems to me they have an alien intelligence that we can't qualify, especially octopuses.

Not especially. I know that Octopus brains and nervous systems are very different to ours. I also know that the squid is also highly intelligent and most species live in groups and even display complex patterns on their skin which some biologists have suggested could be a form of communication.

The Octopus has also shown the ability to learn by example, a trait completely useless to a solitary animal like the Octopus. I’d hazard a guess that an evolutionary ancestor of the Octopus did live in groups, that pushed the evolution of its intelligence and learning skills before the Octopus and Squid split. The Octopus despite becoming more solitary would probably have kept the higher intelligence as it would have offered some advantages too their survival. It doubt intelligence could be a detrimental trait so there would be no mechanism for removing it.

Parrots like other vocal birds live in large social groups (to my knowledge) and likewise have shown communication skills and learning by example, so again I’d say that it was probably an effect of their social grouping.

The communication skills of parrots have actually been noticed in the lab:

Quote:
Pepperberg has first-hand experience in this area. Her team has studied an African Grey parrot, called Alex, in the lab for 27 years. Alex can articulate sounds for objects, shapes, colours and materials, knows the concepts of same and different, and bosses around lab assistants in order to modify his environment.

http://www.thegabrielfoundation.org/HTML/tongues.htm

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SASSALICIOUS:
More news from the animal kingdom: Llamas in Peru get a bit of a high by eating coca leaves, grasshoppers jump unusually high when they eat wild marijuana leaves, and elephants tend to seek out fermented ripe fruit for a bit of a buzz.

Do you have any sources for the evolutionary basis of Asians tending to be deficient in alcohol dehydrogenase (enzyme that breaks down alcohol, preferentially ethanol) because what you said is interesting and I'd like to read more about it. Other groups that are also deficient: Ashkenazi Jews and possibly Native Americans and Latin Americans (assuming I'm reading this right). People of Asian descent get kicked in the ass again because they also tend to be deficient in acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.

Evolution is intriguing.

Not really that I can show you. There’s not much in the way of on-line sources (from a cursory scan) either I found a somewhat brief mention of the Chinese preference to boiling as a means for water treatment:

Quote:
In China, the preference was for warm (or boiled) water, possibly, though not necessarily, in which vegetable substances had been steeped (i.e., tea).
…
In other cases, as in the addition of wine to water in early modern France, the action was explicitly a purification, with greater or lesser amounts of wine added according to the estimated degree of impurity of the water

http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/water.htm

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:05 PM