Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SamCogar

The Aquatic Bird Theory (ABT) verses the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT)

Recommended Posts

Excluding pro-creation of the species, ….. the majority of all evolved physical attributes in all animal species can be directly attributed to their, per se, “choice” or “selection” of a food type, class and/or source. Thus, the different “survival-of-the-fittest” physical attributes of the predator and prey species have evolved.

 

The questions of evolution:

 

Did a few early terrestrial living bird species evolve to become aquatic animals living, birthing and feeding in the water …… and then re-evolve back to living on the land but still feeding in the water.

 

NO, they did not.

 

Those early terrestrial feeding bird species simply evolved physical attributes for feeding in the water and thus are commonly referred to as aquatic feeding birds and/or Aquatic Birds.

 

Did an early species of terrestrial feeding ape evolve to become an aquatic animal living, birthing and feeding in the water ….. and then re-evolve back to living on the land but still partially feeding in the water.

 

NO, it did not.

 

The aforesaid early species of terrestrial feeding ape evolved physical attributes for feeding in the water and thus are commonly referred to by some as being an aquatic feeding ape and/or Aquatic Ape.

 

Are there Aquatic Birds? YES, currently a hundred (100) or so different species.

 

Nothing in the evolution of Aquatic Birds makes sense except in the light of a close association with an aquatic (water) environment which was utilized as their primary source for gathering food.

Are there Aquatic Apes? YES, currently one (1) species, Homo sapiens sapiens (humans).

 

Nothing in the evolution of Aquatic Apes (humans) makes sense except in the light of a close association with an aquatic (water) environment which was utilized as their primary source for gathering food.

 

Thus, given the above stated facts, it is obvious that a science based discussion is warranted, ..... to determine why so many learned individuals prefer to embrace the evolutionary aspects of the Aquatic Bird Theory (ABT) ….. while at the same time ….. denying, discrediting and/or defaming the evolutionary aspects of the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 


Excluding pro-creation of the species, ….. the majority of all evolved physical attributes in all animal species can be directly attributed to their, per se, “choice” or “selection” of a food type, class and/or source. Thus, the different “survival-of-the-fittest” physical attributes of the predator and prey species have evolved.

 

The questions of evolution:

 

Did a few early terrestrial living bird species evolve to become aquatic animals living, birthing and feeding in the water …… and then re-evolve back to living on the land but still feeding in the water.

 

NO, they did not.

 

Those early terrestrial feeding bird species simply evolved physical attributes for feeding in the water and thus are commonly referred to as aquatic feeding birds and/or Aquatic Birds.

 

Did an early species of terrestrial feeding ape evolve to become an aquatic animal living, birthing and feeding in the water ….. and then re-evolve back to living on the land but still partially feeding in the water.

 

NO, it did not.

 

The aforesaid early species of terrestrial feeding ape evolved physical attributes for feeding in the water and thus are commonly referred to by some as being an aquatic feeding ape and/or Aquatic Ape.

 

Are there Aquatic Birds? YES, currently a hundred (100) or so different species.

 

Nothing in the evolution of Aquatic Birds makes sense except in the light of a close association with an aquatic (water) environment which was utilized as their primary source for gathering food.

Are there Aquatic Apes? YES, currently one (1) species, Homo sapiens sapiens (humans).

 

Nothing in the evolution of Aquatic Apes (humans) makes sense except in the light of a close association with an aquatic (water) environment which was utilized as their primary source for gathering food.

 

Thus, given the above stated facts

 

 

Show us how they're facts and you'll get your discussion.

post-62012-0-72784300-1487519496_thumb.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are there Aquatic Apes? YES, currently one (1) species, Homo sapiens sapiens (humans).

 

I'll respond to this once I have finished my bath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the Auquatic Ape Theory is not the idea that humans have some adaptations that allow us to better deal with and live in and around water than many other apes. To say as much is not especially controversial.

 

The problem is that Aquatic Ape Theory supposes that adaptations to the water are the primary driver of a wide range of features in human evolution for which there are, frankly, better explanations.

 

It is a dispute over the number of adaptations and their relative importance in the formation of humanity as it now exists, rather than about whether humans have any adaptations that help us live in and around water at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Aquatic Ape Theory supposes that adaptations to the water are the primary driver of a wide range of features in human evolution for which there are, frankly, better explanations.

 

You are not joking, are you? Serious as a "heart attack", aren't you?

 

Well sorry about that, cause if so, ...... me definitely sure that you have been sorely miseducated and brainwashed into believing a whole parcel of "junk science" claims that have no basis in reality or the functioning of the natural world.

 

It is a dispute over the number of adaptations and their relative importance in the formation of humanity as it now exists,

 

 

OH GOOD GRIEF, the number of evolved adaptations are immaterial.

 

It is the 5 or 6 critically evolved adaptations that discredits the ...... Out of the trees and Out of Africa via Across the Hot African Savannah Theory of human evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean that you have given up on your other wild idea?

The intelligent entity responsible for the DNA modifications of an extant species of the hominidae family (great apes) that resulted in the origin of a member of the genus Homo, and specifically the species Homo sapiens sapiens,...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/103220-a-logical-perspective-on-the-origins-of-homo-sapiens-sapiens/page-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aquatic Ape Theory?

 

You are not joking, are you? Serious as a "heart attack", aren't you?

 

Well sorry about that, cause if so, ...... me definitely sure that you have been sorely miseducated and brainwashed into believing a whole parcel of "junk science" claims that have no basis in reality or the functioning of the natural world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are not joking, are you? Serious as a "heart attack", aren't you?

 

Well sorry about that, cause if so, ...... me definitely sure that you have been sorely miseducated and brainwashed into believing a whole parcel of "junk science" claims that have no basis in reality or the functioning of the natural world.

 

 

OH GOOD GRIEF, the number of evolved adaptations are immaterial.

 

It is the 5 or 6 critically evolved adaptations that discredits the ...... Out of the trees and Out of Africa via Across the Hot African Savannah Theory of human evolution.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

More evidence, less posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am pretty sure that I had given up on the wild idea of a "Godly Creator" before my 6th birthday.

 

My mommy was a religio-fanatic ....... but my daddy was a common sense thinker and logical reasoned.

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

More evidence, less posturing.

 

To the Moderator

 

Was that note stating "more evidence" ...... directed to the attention of swansont ........ or to my attention?

 

One has to be very specific when asking for one to submit "evidence of evolution of the sapiens species" simply because there is in actuality, very little physical evidence available that can be used to explain and/or prove the different stages of "descent with modification" that the early members of one of the species of the Family of Great Apes underwent, or evolved through, to become the Homo sapiens sapiens species (humans) of today.

 

In actuality, the only physical evidence available that actually proves the evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens ..... is us humans ourselves. And to figure out how we evolved from being an ancient member of the Family of Great Apes, we humans have to, per se, .... "reverse evolve" (like reverse engineering) our physical and/or mental attributes to determine the most likely and logical "sequence of events" that had to have occurred as we humans evolved from "ape to man".

 

Thus said, ........ then common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions, ..... that must be employed during the afore stated "reverse evolution" process, ....... becomes the de facto "evidence of evolution of the physical and mental attributes of humans".

 

Bipedal locomotion, ..... loss of protective body hair, ...... salt emitting epidermal sweat glands, ....... loss of incisor/canine teeth, ..... tool making, etc., are just a few of the "logically reasoned" points of "abstract" evidence that proves humans evolved because of their ancestors close association with an aquatic environment.(AAT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One has to be very specific when asking for one to submit "evidence of evolution of the sapiens species" simply because there is in actuality, very little physical evidence available that can be used to explain and/or prove the different stages of "descent with modification" that the early members of one of the species of the Family of Great Apes underwent, or evolved through, to become the Homo sapiens sapiens species (humans) of today.

 

In actuality, the only physical evidence available that actually proves the evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens ..... is us humans ourselves. And to figure out how we evolved from being an ancient member of the Family of Great Apes, we humans have to, per se, .... "reverse evolve" (like reverse engineering) our physical and/or mental attributes to determine the most likely and logical "sequence of events" that had to have occurred as we humans evolved from "ape to man".

 

 

Here's some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naked Mole Rats are 'hairless' too. There can be different reasons for similar adaptations.

 

We are awesome at persistence hunting. Be difficult with a fur coat on though.

Edited by Endy0816

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about beaver, otters, seals, polar bears...

 

With all that hair, they must be poorly adapted to living in aquatic environments ;). Luckily humans have such nicely streamlined hairless bodies.

 

Or what about the elephant of the rhinoceros?

 

Seriously, though: humans even lack the buoyancy and instinctive swimming abilities that so many other mammals have. Like humans, other apes can be taught to swim.

 

Like Endy0816 implies, I think the ability to cool our body by sweating excessively makes quite a bit of sense as an evolutionary advantage.

Edited by Bender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To the Moderator

 

Was that note stating "more evidence" ...... directed to the attention of swansont ........ or to my attention?

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I didn't post it to bring it to my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bipedal locomotion, loss of protective body hair and the evolving of “sweat glands” over their entire epidermal skin area are just three (3) of the physical attributes that our early human ancestors, the only sub-species in the Family of Great Apes, evolved to best survive in the environment that they chose to live and reproduce in.

 

So, the question is, what was their selected environment like that best suited a bipedal stance or movement, ….. did not require the protection of a heavy coating of body hair, ,,,,, but absolutely, positively required that their entire body surface (epidermis) contain sweat glands that secrete copious amounts of salt (NaCl) containing water (H2O).

 

Surely that environment was not a hot, semi-arid African savannah simply because salt (NaCl) and water (H2O) are the two (2) most important, precious resources necessary for human survival ….. and thus it would be highly detrimental to one’s survival if they indiscriminately rid their body of said without an immediate means of replacing said losses.

 

Too little, or too much salt (NaCl) is a cause of certain death to humans. And that is exactly why most athletes make sure they have access to "salt tablets".

 

As far as anyone knows, ….. the evolving of “sweat glands” in the epidermis covering of the human body may have specifically evolved for ridding the body of excess salt (that was/is ingested as a result of their primary food source) …… because the retention of too much salt will kill you “deader than a door nail”,

 

There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salty” water. And died because they "sweated out" too much of their body salt content, .... a condition known as "heat stroke".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salty” water. .

 

Shouldn't that be "more than one (>1)" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

Shouldn't that be "more than one (>1)" ?

 

If one prefers to use a 'greater than' symbol then that is one's personal choice, ....... but my doing so, ..... would sure make for a weird reading of this sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, many well informed people will try to correct you when you make mistakes.

Oh, and argument from authority is a fallacy.

Oh, and so is the Galileo Gambit.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one prefers to use a 'greater than' symbol then that is one's personal choice, ....... but my doing so, ..... would sure make for a weird reading of this sentence.

Reading sentences with numbers in brackets is already weird, adding another symbol does not make it more weird.

Bipedal locomotion, loss of protective body hair and the evolving of “sweat glands” over their entire epidermal skin area are just three (3) of the physical attributes that our early human ancestors, the only sub-species in the Family of Great Apes, evolved to best survive in the environment that they chose to live and reproduce in.

 

So, the question is, what was their selected environment like that best suited a bipedal stance or movement, ….. did not require the protection of a heavy coating of body hair, ,,,,, but absolutely, positively required that their entire body surface (epidermis) contain sweat glands that secrete copious amounts of salt (NaCl) containing water (H2O).

 

Surely that environment was not a hot, semi-arid African savannah simply because salt (NaCl) and water (H2O) are the two (2) most important, precious resources necessary for human survival ….. and thus it would be highly detrimental to one’s survival if they indiscriminately rid their body of said without an immediate means of replacing said losses.

 

Too little, or too much salt (NaCl) is a cause of certain death to humans. And that is exactly why most athletes make sure they have access to "salt tablets".

 

As far as anyone knows, ….. the evolving of “sweat glands” in the epidermis covering of the human body may have specifically evolved for ridding the body of excess salt (that was/is ingested as a result of their primary food source) …… because the retention of too much salt will kill you “deader than a door nail”,

 

There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salty” water. And died because they "sweated out" too much of their body salt content, .... a condition known as "heat stroke".

 

Hippos, Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises don't have any sweat glands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SamCogar - I've had an ongoing interest in the evolution of human furlessness and don't see anything particularly aquatic about it. Applying a kind of "reverse engineering" to body hair - paying attention to it's current functions as well as what reduced or lost functions compared to related apes, primates, mammals and considering what evolutionary processes including advantages and disadvantages could lead to the range of hairiness humans currently display - doesn't lead me to conclude there is or was anything aquatic. Comparing to other "hairless" mammals (n.b. even mole rats, elephant and rhinoceros are not truly hairless) can help in finding potential evolutionary "pressures" that may lead to that furless state but each had it's own distinct evolutionary history; they can only indicate possibilities to consider and should not be seen as anything conclusive or exclusive of other possibilities. And amongst the possibilities we probably should not leave out that dominant mutations swept through a population of clever, problem solving, behaviourally adaptive hominids without providing any disadvantage they could not survive or advantage that greatly improved survival - they just tolerated the changes.

 

BTW, out of interest, can I ask what functions you think body hair has lost and what functions you think it currently performs? Note that I will argue if you claim it currently serves no significant function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reading sentences with numbers in brackets is already weird, adding another symbol does not make it more weird.

 

I'm sure this sentence is "weird" reading for many folks, to wit:

 

Remember how Planck's equation and the wave equation were combined to give: E = (6.626 x 10-34 J·s)(3.000 x 108 m/s) / (5.000 x 10-17 m)

 

 

 

Hippos, Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises don't have any sweat glands.

 

 

Me thinks the above noted spend the majority of their time ...... in the water.

 

Animals in the mammalian class, including elephants, dogs, cats, apes, bats, sloths, lemurs, horses and beavers, have sweat glands and sweat through either their eccrine, their apocrine sweat glands or both. Primate mammals, such as apes, gorillas and humans, have eccrine sweat glands all over their bodies. https://www.reference.com/science/animals-sweat-636a96f5a97aecf5

 

 

Well I'll be flabbergasted fer shur, ...... those hairy ape and hairy gorillas are also epidermal "sweaters". I wunder why?

 

Eccrine glands (sometimes called merocrine glands) are the major sweat glands of the human body, found in virtually all skin, with the highest density in palms and soles, then on the head, but much less on the trunk and the extremities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccrine_sweat_gland

 

 

Must be that human hands and feet get the "hottest" when they go running bipedally down the street to be 1st in line at a Rock Concert.

 

And iffen the 2nd highest density of sweat glands is on the human head ......... why didn't us humans evolve to be bald headed, a hair "free" head like the rest of our body? That is, except for the "dry lubricant" areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bipedal locomotion, loss of protective body hair and the evolving of “sweat glands” over their entire epidermal skin area are just three (3) of the physical attributes that our early human ancestors, the only sub-species in the Family of Great Apes, evolved to best survive in the environment that they chose to live and reproduce in.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You've neglected to provide the evidence as to how these must have come from an aquatic existence, and could not have arisen another way. (Especially in light of the mention that aquatic mammal species without sweat glands exist, which you inexplicably seemed to embrace as supporting you)

 

So, last chance. Provide evidence that supports your position (to the exclusion of the mainstream), or we're done here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Fabian, I would like to thank you for a truly pleasant response to my posted commentary and I will attempt to address your questions and comments as best as I can, given the situation.

 

SamCogar - I've had an ongoing interest in the evolution of human furlessness and don't see anything particularly aquatic about it. Applying a kind of "reverse engineering" to body hair - paying attention to it's current functions as well as what reduced or lost functions compared to related apes, primates, mammals and considering what evolutionary processes including advantages and disadvantages could lead to the range of hairiness humans currently display - doesn't lead me to conclude there is or was anything aquatic.

 

Ken Fabian, if you are only focusing on or only considering “human furlessness” then I agree, you will not readily see anything particularly aquatic about it. And the same goes for human bipedalism, you won’t see anything particularly aquatic about it either. But you can’t be “focusing on” human furlessness or bipedalism if you are going to apply a kind of “reverse evolution” to determine the environmental “driver” of said attributes. Thus said, one has to focus on the “environmental driver(s)” responsible for the evolved attributes, …… and not the attributes themselves.

 

Thus, Ken, it is of my learned opinion that human “furlessness” is a direct result of human “bipedalism”. In other words, human bipedalism was the “environmental driver” responsible for human furlessness.

 

And I say that because, if our early human ancestors had never evolved the ability of bipedal walking ….. then there would not have been any logical reason (environmental driver) for their body to evolve furlessness. Human bipedalism and furlessness go “hand-in-hand”, no need of one without the other.

 

And, Ken, the next obvious question that I am sure you will want me to provide an answer to/for is: “And just what is the “environmental driver” responsible for human bipedalism?”

 

And the simple answer to the aforesaid question is, ….. our early human ancestors, which eventually evolved to be a sub-species of the Family of Great Apes, established a close association with an aquatic environment by taking up residence on or near the shoreline of a river, lake, tidal zone or inland sea simply because said body of water (aqua) provided them an easily accessible, abundant supply of high-protein foods that did not require the expenditure of great amounts of time and energy, …… or the use of tools, …. for harvesting said food or for eating of said foods. Life is good …… for any animal species that doesn’t have to spend all their waking hours searching for food and evading predators.

 

And bipedal walking evolved as a result of ….. harvesting their food from the shallow waters. It is quite easy to learn to walk bipedally by walking (wading) in water because the water provides buoyancy to easily hold oneself in an upright position. And thus, our early ancestors that were the best bipedal waders/walkers in the water ……. were also the bestest provider of aquatic foods ….. and the bestest food provider got to do the mostest procreating with the females.

 

Comparing to other "hairless" mammals (n.b. even mole rats, elephant and rhinoceros are not truly hairless) can help in finding potential evolutionary "pressures" that may lead to that furless state ............

 

 

Yup, if one can discover/determine what the environmental “driver(s)” are/were, then that would be the same as determining what the evolutionary "pressures" were for each of the different species you mentioned, …… right?

 

BTW, out of interest, can I ask what functions you think body hair has lost and what functions you think it currently performs? Note that I will argue if you claim it currently serves no significant function.

 

 

Ken, the loss of body hair/fur by early humans resulted in the loss of a protective covering of the epidermis, which meant that it would have impossible for early humans to walk or run amongst or through the brush, weeds, thorns, briars, etc., while looking for tubers or fruits …… or either trying to catch a prey animal or trying to evade a predator animal ……. without their “bare” skin being cut, scraped, gouged and/or lacerated …. which would have surely resulted in their demise. Loss of body hair/fur also meant a loss of protection from blood-sucking and biting insects that commonly inhabit brushy fields, grasslands and swampy locales.

 

Loss of the majority of body hair/fur by early humans meant that they could more easily walk or wade bipedally in the water when harvesting aquatic foods. Heavy or thick body hair/fur would cause a severe “drag” on quick movements required to capture aquatic prey animals, especially in deep water.

Humans retained their body hair under their arms and between the legs in their groin area simply because said patches of hair serves the purpose of a “dry lubricant”.

 

And humans retained their body hair on their head most likely because of their bipedal stance. It protected their head and brain from the solar irradiance …… as well as providing a “glare reducing” aid or shield when bipedally walking in the water harvesting their food.

 

Harvesting their aquatic food whose remains provided them with a variety of “natural tools” that didn’t need any “inventing” by those early humans, …… who just had to figure out how best to use them.

 

And they had plenty of “free time” to do their “figuring” ….. because they were not spending all their awake hours searching for food and evading predators.

 

Nuff for now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this sentence is "weird" reading for many folks, to wit:

That's an equation that adds information not otherwise present. It ideally should be written as a proper equation in a [math] environment.

 

Me thinks the above noted spend the majority of their time ...... in the water.

My point exactly: they lost all of their sweat glands while aquatic.

 

Must be that human hands and feet get the "hottest" when they go running bipedally down the street to be 1st in line at a Rock Concert.

Sweat glands on hand and feet of all primates help in regulating the friction required to climb or hold tools. Personally, my hand or feet barely sweat when my body needs cooling, while my torso is soaked.

 

And iffen the 2nd highest density of sweat glands is on the human head ......... why didn't us humans evolve to be bald headed, a hair "free" head like the rest of our body? That is, except for the "dry lubricant" areas.

We generate a lot of heat in our head and we have a very sensitive organ inside. As you explain later yourself, the hair helps to keep our head cool in the sun.

Ken Fabian, I would like to thank you for a truly pleasant response to my posted commentary and I will attempt to address your questions and comments as best as I can, given the situation.

 

 

Ken Fabian, if you are only focusing on or only considering “human furlessness” then I agree, you will not readily see anything particularly aquatic about it. And the same goes for human bipedalism, you won’t see anything particularly aquatic about it either. But you can’t be “focusing on” human furlessness or bipedalism if you are going to apply a kind of “reverse evolution” to determine the environmental “driver” of said attributes. Thus said, one has to focus on the “environmental driver(s)” responsible for the evolved attributes, …… and not the attributes themselves.

 

Thus, Ken, it is of my learned opinion that human “furlessness” is a direct result of human “bipedalism”. In other words, human bipedalism was the “environmental driver” responsible for human furlessness.

 

And I say that because, if our early human ancestors had never evolved the ability of bipedal walking ….. then there would not have been any logical reason (environmental driver) for their body to evolve furlessness. Human bipedalism and furlessness go “hand-in-hand”, no need of one without the other.

 

And, Ken, the next obvious question that I am sure you will want me to provide an answer to/for is: “And just what is the “environmental driver” responsible for human bipedalism?”

 

And the simple answer to the aforesaid question is, ….. our early human ancestors, which eventually evolved to be a sub-species of the Family of Great Apes, established a close association with an aquatic environment by taking up residence on or near the shoreline of a river, lake, tidal zone or inland sea simply because said body of water (aqua) provided them an easily accessible, abundant supply of high-protein foods that did not require the expenditure of great amounts of time and energy, …… or the use of tools, …. for harvesting said food or for eating of said foods. Life is good …… for any animal species that doesn’t have to spend all their waking hours searching for food and evading predators.

 

And bipedal walking evolved as a result of ….. harvesting their food from the shallow waters. It is quite easy to learn to walk bipedally by walking (wading) in water because the water provides buoyancy to easily hold oneself in an upright position. And thus, our early ancestors that were the best bipedal waders/walkers in the water ……. were also the bestest provider of aquatic foods ….. and the bestest food provider got to do the mostest procreating with the females.

 

 

Yup, if one can discover/determine what the environmental “driver(s)” are/were, then that would be the same as determining what the evolutionary "pressures" were for each of the different species you mentioned, …… right?

 

 

Ken, the loss of body hair/fur by early humans resulted in the loss of a protective covering of the epidermis, which meant that it would have impossible for early humans to walk or run amongst or through the brush, weeds, thorns, briars, etc., while looking for tubers or fruits …… or either trying to catch a prey animal or trying to evade a predator animal ……. without their “bare” skin being cut, scraped, gouged and/or lacerated …. which would have surely resulted in their demise. Loss of body hair/fur also meant a loss of protection from blood-sucking and biting insects that commonly inhabit brushy fields, grasslands and swampy locales.

 

Loss of the majority of body hair/fur by early humans meant that they could more easily walk or wade bipedally in the water when harvesting aquatic foods. Heavy or thick body hair/fur would cause a severe “drag” on quick movements required to capture aquatic prey animals, especially in deep water.

 

Humans retained their body hair under their arms and between the legs in their groin area simply because said patches of hair serves the purpose of a “dry lubricant”.

 

And humans retained their body hair on their head most likely because of their bipedal stance. It protected their head and brain from the solar irradiance …… as well as providing a “glare reducing” aid or shield when bipedally walking in the water harvesting their food.

 

Harvesting their aquatic food whose remains provided them with a variety of “natural tools” that didn’t need any “inventing” by those early humans, …… who just had to figure out how best to use them.

 

And they had plenty of “free time” to do their “figuring” ….. because they were not spending all their awake hours searching for food and evading predators.

 

Nuff for now.

 

 

You might want to check out crocodiles and leaches.

 

Humans are also horrible at moving in water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.