3 ms·

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=735181 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=735181

BerislavLopac 17y ago
That site proves nothing. It just counteracts AAT "claims" with "facts" not backed with too much hard evidence. The problem with the original AAT is that it piles together everything and the kitchen sink if there might be drawn a most remote connection between it and water. It's very easy to dismiss the theory as it was set -- but some individual aspects of it have a lot of merit, and even more mainstream anthropologists have started to seriously consider a possibility of an "aquatic" phase in human evolution. Our ancestors were probably never fully "aquatic", but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water. There is one thing we can be pretty certain when it comes to human evolution: at one point in time, our ancestors had no need for the natural protecting covering on their bodies (fur, which is used as protection from all kinds of hazards, including heat, cold, venom etc), so they lost it. The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection, and once they lost that protection they had to substitute it with some other covering, and this is how clothing was invented. And the only natural protection we know of are water and earth. Ponder on that next time you'll be enjoying a dip in the pool.
- asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
  but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water That's not disputed. There's food in them shallow pools and there's plentiful evidence of people eating tons of shellfish etc, all around the world. This is also indisputably NOT an aquatic ape. The swimming macaques in the Ganges delta aren't aquatic apes. They are land monkeys who can and do swim and search for food under water. Tigers swim, they are not aquatic cats. Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals. The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection Really? Fur protects us from cold and venom but water replaces that protection? There's no other reason to lose the fur? Like parasites, and a tropical climate, and animal skins a.k.a. clothing? Oh wait, you say that clothing came after we lost the protection of water, because the world ran out of water? Yes next time I jump in the pool and feel the cold water, I'll think boy I sure with I was fury like an otter.
  - BerislavLopac 17y ago
    Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals. True. This is why that unfortunate moniker "aquatic" is misleading. And on your second point: warm water protects from cold, and even from venom if local venomous animals can't swim. And there is plenty of naturally warm water around. Regarding the other reasons to lose fur, I'm still waiting to see any other animal which has lost its fur for any of the reasons above. And yes, the world ran out of water; specifically, the immediate habitat of our ancestors at one point ran out of warm water. You have to keep in mind that it has been scientifically proven that the modern humans had a few very close calls in their history, and that we are descended from a small group that at one point had no more than about 1000 individuals, who probably inhabited a small area. So all the effects could have easily be local to produce the modern traits.

That site proves nothing. It just counteracts AAT "claims" with "facts" not backed with too much hard evidence. The problem with the original AAT is that it piles together everything and the kitchen sink if there might be drawn a most remote connection between it and water. It's very easy to dismiss the theory as it was set -- but some individual aspects of it have a lot of merit, and even more mainstream anthropologists have started to seriously consider a possibility of an "aquatic" phase in human evolution. Our ancestors were probably never fully "aquatic", but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water. There is one thing we can be pretty certain when it comes to human evolution: at one point in time, our ancestors had no need for the natural protecting covering on their bodies (fur, which is used as protection from all kinds of hazards, including heat, cold, venom etc), so they lost it. The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection, and once they lost that protection they had to substitute it with some other covering, and this is how clothing was invented. And the only natural protection we know of are water and earth. Ponder on that next time you'll be enjoying a dip in the pool.

asdlfj2sd33 17y ago
but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water That's not disputed. There's food in them shallow pools and there's plentiful evidence of people eating tons of shellfish etc, all around the world. This is also indisputably NOT an aquatic ape. The swimming macaques in the Ganges delta aren't aquatic apes. They are land monkeys who can and do swim and search for food under water. Tigers swim, they are not aquatic cats. Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals. The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection Really? Fur protects us from cold and venom but water replaces that protection? There's no other reason to lose the fur? Like parasites, and a tropical climate, and animal skins a.k.a. clothing? Oh wait, you say that clothing came after we lost the protection of water, because the world ran out of water? Yes next time I jump in the pool and feel the cold water, I'll think boy I sure with I was fury like an otter.
- BerislavLopac 17y ago
  Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals. True. This is why that unfortunate moniker "aquatic" is misleading. And on your second point: warm water protects from cold, and even from venom if local venomous animals can't swim. And there is plenty of naturally warm water around. Regarding the other reasons to lose fur, I'm still waiting to see any other animal which has lost its fur for any of the reasons above. And yes, the world ran out of water; specifically, the immediate habitat of our ancestors at one point ran out of warm water. You have to keep in mind that it has been scientifically proven that the modern humans had a few very close calls in their history, and that we are descended from a small group that at one point had no more than about 1000 individuals, who probably inhabited a small area. So all the effects could have easily be local to produce the modern traits.