Before "Lucy" -- New Evidence Regarding the Course of Human Evolution

[jason_els]

I am an avid reader of honest speculative science, so I enjoyed this particular book very much. However, I am reserving judgement to see how much of this particular point of view eventually finds some legs.

Don't you mean fins?

Her arguments work for me in an Occam's Razor kind of way. I believe that the adaptation of the human female to always be ready for pregnancy is directly due to our intelligence. It gave us choice of time for reproduction and that's quite a useful adaptation given how few offspring we have, how difficult it is to carry and give birth, and how much time and resources we invest in our young. We also seem to derive great health benefits from fish and shellfish as if our bodies preferred these types of food.

It's a pity so much of what would have been the coastline of the time is underwater. I think otherwise we would have found a great deal of corroborating evidence and we may still given technological advancements.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

I wonder if calamity or catastrophe could involuntarily drive humans back into the water?


I mean (for the sake of argument, let's say global warming) can humans re-adapt back to aquatic life if land mass and temperatures make our current arrangement untenable?

 

[JustAsking]

I wonder if calamity or catastrophe could involuntarily drive humans back into the water?


I mean (for the sake of argument, let's say global warming) can humans re-adapt back to aquatic life if land mass and temperatures make our current arrangement untenable?

That is basically what the "aquatic ape theory" says happened the first time. As the forests dried up, we took to the shoreline and the surf. We didn't quite become aquatic creatures, but rather we spent most of our time in the surf along the shore eating sea food, standing upright in deep water and needing to use facial expressions and later speech to communicate instead of body language.

You might call it the "bobbing ape theory", since our adaptations were slight and we hung around close to shore. I suppose we could easily do that again, except we will have fished out all the sea food by then as well.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I'm even sure though, that some creationists would use an older hominid than Lucy as an example that mankind has been around longer and with more of the fossil record than we thought before.
Both sides keep coming up with this evidence that will "trump" the other, and "they can't deny this-they must see they are ignorant buffalo humpers" but in the end-they never do.

Sorry... no creationist will point to an earlier fossil as being an older human ancestor, because they fundamentally do not believe human beings evolved.

Seriously... that is the definition of a creationist.


And, No, actually, no creationist has come up with 1 iota of evidence in support of their claims.

Not One.

EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE EVER FOUND has supported evolution 100%.
Not even Quantum Mechanics has as good a track record.

So you might understand why the Evolutionists are a little put out when they keep having to field arguments form folks who have yet to make an actual argument, who have never put forth any evidence and who deny the validity of the literal mountains of evidence that all supports evolution.

Creationists are imbeciles.

Every last one.

And the creationists who fancy themselves scientists?

Let's just say their utter lack of meaningful contribution to the body of scientific knowledge reveals them to be among the lest competent people in their fields.

 

[JustAsking]

Looks like The Discovery Channel is all over this Ardi thing like a cheap suit in the rain. A big special on it next Sunday. I hope they refrain from the histrionics and do a good job on the significance of it. I can only watch so many shows of MythBusters.

We tend to think that the hominid family is a linear progression of one form to the next. But it appears that it is no different than the rest of the tree of life, with lots of concurrent branches.

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

I wonder if calamity or catastrophe could involuntarily drive humans back into the water?


I mean (for the sake of argument, let's say global warming) can humans re-adapt back to aquatic life if land mass and temperatures make our current arrangement untenable?

Some island peoples in the Pacific and Indian oceans do live quite aquatic lifestyles. I remember seeing a programme about a tribe that go fishing by free diving using hand-held harpoons.
If you ever see bonobos wading through marshlands it does feel like looking into our past, I can believe the aquatic hypothesis. One day we may find some compelling evidence.

 

[cdarro]

Elaine Morgan's "theories", while perhaps entertaining, have never been taken seriously by mainstream anthropologists.

 

[Drifterwood]

I wonder if calamity or catastrophe could involuntarily drive humans back into the water?


I mean (for the sake of argument, let's say global warming) can humans re-adapt back to aquatic life if land mass and temperatures make our current arrangement untenable?

Yes, there is some evidence that the Solutreans travelled along the pack ice across the Atlantic during the last Ice Age. Inuit peoples live on the margins as do many others on coasts and in marshes. Probably not great for vegetarians though.