Re: Neanderthal noses as an 'aquatic' adapatation?

From: Rich Travsky (traRvEsky_at_hotmMOVEail.com)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:08:16 -0700

Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> > Algis Kuliukas wrote:
> > > Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > > "Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1103777377.989848.138430@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > [...]
> > > They have to laugh at it, Marc, because the idea that a Neanderthal
> > > might have ever swam is just not on their radar. The image of
> >
> > Swim? Swim is not the issue. Ask Marc about the snorkel noses...
> >
> > If you're brave enough, then ask about the flipper feet...
>
> Is this supposed to be some kind of objection?

Marc is trying to draw attention away from snorkel noses and make it an
issue of swimming. Guess why...
 
> > > [...]
> > > And yet if anyone goes to the trouble to do this little experiment
> one
> > > can see that Marc's idea is not so stupid and, in fact, once again
> is
> > > probably right.
> > >
> > > Go to a part of a swimming pool that is too deep to touch the
> bottom.
> > > Take a really deep breath of air and tilt your head forwards and
> just
> > > hang there floating without moving. You'll find that the
> orientation of
> > > your floating body is such that your back is at the surface and
> your
> > > mouth and nose are submerged. Now, merely tilt your head backwards
> > > slightly. You'll find that rather quickly you'll reach a point
> where
> > > your body will suddenly re-orientate itself in the water so that
> your
> > > mouth and nose become the parts of the body that are above the
> water,
> > > enabling you to breathe without any effort whatsoever, as well as
> open
> > > your eyes and look around.
> >
> > Except for the effort of keeping the head in such a position... It's
> > the equivalent of looking up all the time, an unnatural posture.
>
> True in humans that effort would be required. But it's rather slight.

Try doing it for an extended period... 3 to 5 minutes should be enough...
not too mention you may well be staring into the sun...
 
> > > Now, if you are a person with an median amount of adipocity for a
> > > western society, clearly if you exhaled quite deeply your breathing
> >
> > And what about hominids way back before "western society"?
>
> Good question. I don't know how fat they were, do you? But considering
> that the human propensity to quickly lay down body fat appears to be a
> universal human trait (ie people who have not been through a phase of
> argicultural life still tend to get fat quickly) I'd suggest that if
> there was ample food at any stage in the history of Hs then we'd have
> put on weight. I'd suggest that a marine coastal foraging lifestyle
> would have provided sufficient food as would any culture based around
> catching fish. In other words I don't see any reason to think of them
> as being malnurished.

You've said nothing that isn't true of other animals. My Aussie shepherd
puppy put on extra weight from the puppy chow, so we had to switch him
over to adult food early.
 
> > > holes would submerge again but the degree this happens it very much
> > > dependant on how fat you are. With a bit of practice one can soon
> > > perfect the technique of taking long, deep inhalations followed by
> very
> > > short, shallow exhalations to stay at the surface. It's definitely
> a
> > > very close thing between being able to breathe whilst floating with
> no
> > > effort at all and not being able to do so.
> >
> > As long as there's no wind or wave action...
>
> True.

That's it? This can only be done with a smooth as glass surface???
 
> > > I would suggest that any slight change in the orientation of the
> skull
> > > and increased adipocity would be more than enough to tilt the
> balance
> > > in favour of effortless breathing whilst floating. This is the sort
> of
> >
> > Then try it.
>
> I did and it works. I'm suggesting that if a hominid had a different

For how long? How many minutes?

> orientation of the skull than me and was fatter it would be able to do
> this even easier though.

Define "different orientation of the skull". If you mean a differently
positioned foramen magnum, then you just made an argument for staying
quadrupedal....
 
> > > [...]
> > > Marc's use of the word 'snorkel' might have led to some
> > > misunderstanding and ridicule but his basic point is clearly valid
> if -
> >
> > No, no misunderstanding. He means a *snorkel*, a tube. Neanderthal
> > submarines serenely floating around on their backs.
>
> I'm sure you're just being pedantic in interpreting his use a word
> which he might not have actually meant.

Nope. He bases this on Hauser who, when he worked on a neanertal find, claimed
he could the impressions of the nostrils which he said were on top of
the nose (!). No reconstruction can support that notion, but that doesn't
stop Marc.
 
> > > [...]
> > Marc's laughable assertion that neandertal nostrils were located on
> > the top of the nose is indeed worthy of sneering at. The guy is
> *desperate*.
>
> Well if he is asserting that, (Marc?) I'm rather surprised. To my mind

Yes, he is. Ask him.

> having a bigger human-like nose, a reorientated cranium and greater
> adipocity would be sufficient to allow Hsn to move through water rather
> efficiently.

None of that is required to move through water "efficiently".

In fact, that "reorientated cranium" can bethe worst adaptation
imaginable for swimming. A chimp skull's orientation is actually
better oriented.
 
> > > > [...]
> > > I think we can declare that this debate is really over, Marc. The
> tide
> > > has turned. When the best they can come up with is calls to
> killfile
> > > and calling names, I think it's pretty clear which side has won the
> > > argument.
> >
> > Calling names? Like Marc does?
>
> Yes, like Marc does, Rich. (Note I have no problem agreeing with you.)
>
> Tell me though which insult would you rather be called? An 'idiot' or
> 'sub-human piece of ***'?

Name calling is Marc's first resort.

Quantcast