Re: On Topic: Chicken or the egg
- From: Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 25, 8:42 am, JTEM <jte...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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...
It's an incidental observation, IMO. It's highly speculative to
suggest that this has anything to do with the transition from ape to
A'pith--assuming that's what you're saying. And therein lies another
problem--what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that our
earliest chimpanzee-like apes suddenly (for some unknown reason)
abandoned the treed habitat that contained the fruit trees and began
eating shellfish. Why would they do this? You're not telling us.
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.
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
Yeah, so? Isn't this true for a lot of species?
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.
It's both vague and highly speculative. Lots of animals eat fish.
Why didn't they become smart.
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.
Well, I think it's good that you at least recognize that these are
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"
"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
Speculative, vague. Don't waste your time with this kind of
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?
Well, yes. I think I see the issue that you see. It would seem you
just disputed your own conjecture: if they don't submerge then how can
this explain breath control? But that's your issue. I wouldn't waste
my time with the approach that you seem to champion. You are
focussing on one very small aspect of what humans are and ignoring the
aspects that are, IMO, most distinctive about our species in
comparison to other species (the most important of these "other
species" being our chimpanzee-like earliest ancestors): 1) Our
Communalism, 2) Our Communal territorialism, 3) Bipedality, 4)
Manipultative abilities, 5) Group size, 6) Agriculturalism, 7)
Intelligence, etc. etc. etc.
Oh. That was a rhetorical question.