Re: On Topic: Chicken or the egg

Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

TEM <jte...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Even here in north America, just a few hundred years
ago and with an Indian population in the millions, not
only were vast stretches of coastline teeming with
Clams, Mussels, Scallops and the like, but crabs and
even lobsters were free to pick up.

It's hard to really take statements like this seriously.

You're so far off base here you should be embarrassed...

Seriously, dude, never tell a New Englander that you
know better than they do about Lobster...

And, besides, you're missing the point of my post.

Psst. Even today our bodies retain the ability to
consume most ocean proteins raw (See:  Sushi). At the
same time we're dependent on nutrients found in
abundance in fish -- Omega 3s, for example -- and
we're even so well adapted to things like Shrimp
that they don't raise our cholesterol level, though
they themselves are rich in cholesterol.

We're omnivorous.

That doesn't address what I said.

I must point out in all fairness: There's almost no
fish that Humans can't eat. In fact, I don't believe
there's even a single fresh water fish that's poisonous
to man. There's a few ocean fish, I believe, but the
ocean has such a larger diversity that it almost can't be

 -- rocks,
say, to smash through the hard shells, or sharp
sticks to spear the fish. So all at ounce a marine
diet would have provided for the growth of our
brains even as it provided selective pressures in
favor of more intelligence.


It's not the least bit vague. But, anyways, you're WAY
off track here. I'm really not interested in finding
out who is and is not capable of grasping the subtleties
of "Aquatic Ape" theory. I was addressing one aspect of
that theory: The origins of our ability to control our
breath. I suggested that it was a parallel of language,
that we needed such control over breathing as our ever
growing brains reached beyond mere animal vocalizations.

Of course, this all opens up into a "Chicken or the Egg"
type argument...

"Which came first, the ability to control our breathing
or language skills?"

And, of course, there's always allowances for a parallel

"Man learned to hold his breath in an aquatic environment,
which fed him abundant proteins to grow his brain, which
gave him the ability to expand ape like vocalizations into

I do admit that it's fully logical. My real issue with it

#1. There are clear alternatives (the drive towards
language would certainly place evolutionary pressures
on breathing controls)

#2. I see nothing in the "Aquatic Ape" theory that
requires humans to submerge themselves under the

Just the opposite. The whole "It lead to an upright
stance as an evolutionary low-cost way to increase
the water depth we could exploit, even as we maintained

Well that would have us NOT submerging ourselves...

See the issue?

Oh. That was a rhetorical question.