Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.
From: Algis Kuliukas (algis_at_RiverApes.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Previous message: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- In reply to: Bob Keeter: "Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- Next in thread: Rich Travsky: "Lactation Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jan 2005 17:57:08 -0800
Bob Keeter wrote:
> "Pauline M Ross" <pmross@ross-software.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:l87qv0ph79gif22mpf942u02utk7ppt57a@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:27:25 GMT, "Bob Keeter"
<rkeeter@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>If Pauline is in fact willing to concede that
> >>baby fat may not have anything to do with any sort of aquatic ape
> >>ancestry, hey, that "may not" is a long way from "proof", and Id
even say
> >>that she is retaining some measure of objectivity. Good on her.
> >
> > Of course infant fat 'may not' have anything to do with aquaticism.
> > Equally, it 'may not' have anything to do with supplying energy for
> > the large human brain, either. We really don't know at this point.
>
> So, you would say that "baby fat" is a non sequiteur in the great
> AAH debate? Neither ying nor yang; a "push"? Marc and Algis
> wont like you much for such heracy, but. . . Intellectual honesty
does
> make for a soft pillow. 8-) I certainly would not let a
condemnation
> from either cost a moments sleep.
Bob, get a grip. I've never argued for exclusivity in this area. I note
that you've been trying to push Pauline into a binary choice: either
fat was for growth *or* it was for biuyancy. You should know better.
Traits have multiple functions, obviously. If a trait can provide an
adaptive benefit in two, three or more areas then all the more likely
it will be selected for.
Obviously the major function of fat is for energy storage. No-one has
ever denied that. But the issue here is why should human infants
require so much more of that than any other terrestrial land mammal?
Were our species uniquely deficient in food during our evolution? It
seems a bit far fetched to think that. On the other hand, if our
ancestors were not deficient in food at all, but actually enjoyed, on
average a surpluss through living in relatively rich water-side
habitats then fat for energy storage becomes less important and fat for
buoyancy more so.
> > But there is more than one way of approaching the problem. One way
is
> > to say - well, modern humans are terrestrial mammals and generally
> > terrestrial mammals use fat as an energy store, so chances are
infant
> > fat is an energy store.
>
> AND you might just add, that as you state below, this "one", or
something
> close to it, is likely the explaination.
>
> > Another way is to say - where else do we find fat mammals with fat
> > infants? hardly ever in terrestrial mammals, but sometimes in
aquatic
> > mammals, so chances are water comes into it somewhere.
>
> Lets see, dont I remember you citing harp seals and guinea pigs. . .
.
> And arent both "nutritionally challenged" in one way or another?
> Harp seals supposedly by short lactation periods and guinea pigs
> becuase of "low octane" milk that cant even supply enough calories
> and protein for their early growth? Now if there was a compelling
> NEED for a lot of high quality protein, fat and calories early on
> (sort of like humans early brain spurt), does not that fit right in
> with the two above examples?
>
> I also dont remember a single time that you have actually cited
> bouyancy as a driving factor on baby fat (although I do think
> that youve mentioned "insulation", a very strange adapation to
> an animal evolving in the tropics dont you think?
>
> >
> > Either way is OK, frankly. I would say that on balance the energy
> > store idea is more plausible at first glance, but neither has
> > particularly compelling hard evidence.
> >>
> >>On the other hand, I seem to remember some discussion to the effect
> >>that the "only" possible explaination for hominid baby fat was for
> >>floatation and insulation as in other hairless aquatic mammals!
8-)
> >>Its really that objectivity issue that sort of compells me to hold
> >>her feet to the fire on this one.
> >
> > I don't recall ever saying that floatation/insulation is the *only*
> > possible explanation, and I can't imagine saying it either. On the
> > contrary, I happen to think that no single explanation fully
accounts
> > for the peculiar features of human fat (infant and adult).
>
> Sorry. Guess I was carrying that "birds of a feather" analogy a bit
> too far. With only that single little overtasked neuron to keep
things
> going I probably confused one of your claims with Marc's babble or
> Algis's erudite revelations. My apologies.
Then you should extend that apology to Marc and me too, Bob, while
you're at it, because I've never argued that "the *only* possible
explaination for hominid baby fat was for floatation and insulation as
in other hairless aquatic mammals!" and I very much doubt that Marc has
either.
Algis Kuliukas
- Previous message: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- In reply to: Bob Keeter: "Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- Next in thread: Rich Travsky: "Lactation Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
