Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 15, 2011 at 1:56pm

I agree, but I also recognize the need for evidence before an hypothesis can be taken seriously.  Science doesn't know most things, but that doesn't lend any credibility to filling the gaps with fabrications.  I happen to think the Egyptians had a lot more technical savvy than generally recognized, but without hard evidence that is nothing more than conjecture.  I happen to think it's better conjecture than 'aliens did it', but I recognize nonetheless that it is still conjecture.  The same goes for this AAH.  It's very appealing because of the mythological elements that play into it - mermaids, Atlantis, Poseidon, Aquaman, 20,000 leagues under the sea - but without significant supporting evidence I think it's important not to place too much stock in it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel on June 15, 2011 at 2:20pm

Well I'm not inferring anything like Aquaman or the sort. I simply question that a yet to be found fossil on the eastern cost of Africa that shows where certain evolutionary traits came from is beyond the realm of possibility. It's not like she's saying aliens made us. I'm sorry if I'm talking out of my ass here, admittedly I have no credentials or any sort. But what is making me so interested is why such an innocuous theory/hypothesis has garnered such ire from the scientific community. Such an ire that has her pegged as a crackpot for positing only that some of our early ancestors were coastal faring and adapted to their habitat. It really is very reminiscent of religion's staunchness and inability to entertain new ideas. Kinda weirds me out.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 15, 2011 at 2:37pm

I'm not saying that you are inferring Aquaman, just that there is a big body of aquatic mythology of which science would be prudent to steer clear.  The problem with this theory is that, even if true, the fossil record may never reveal any evidence.  We are talking mostly about soft tissue changes that just wouldn't be preserved by fossilization.  That being said, where would one even begin the search?

 

On some matters science simply has to say, "We don't know".  Intellectual honesty demands it.  Inserting things like AAH would be akin to inserting ID, and there is a commitment to intellectual integrity that may come across as stodgy but truth demands that stodginess.  There is no reason to avoid holding the idea on a back burner, but without solid evidence there is just no room for it at the front of the stove.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel on June 15, 2011 at 2:59pm

Lol. That is true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirsten on June 15, 2011 at 9:08pm

Actually, to quote, "Humans seem hairless not because of a lack of follicles but because of the predominance of vellus fibers which are thinner, shorter, and more transparent than terminal fibers. The density of human hair follicles on the skin is about the average for an animal of equivalent size.^[18]"

 

One hypothesis for the reduced size etc. of human body hair seems to involve running.

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Humans-Are-Hairless-and-Sweaty-5...

 

I'm guessing sexual selection played a part as well. Less hair =  easier to see the condition of your potential mate. Might also explain why different ethnicities have different rates of hairiness.  Also, less all-over body bugs. 

 

"Another hypothesis for the thick body hair on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway sexual selection played a role (as well as in the selection of long head hair), (see types of hair and vellus hair), as well as a much larger role of testosterone in men. Sexual selection is the only theory thus far that explains the sexual dimorphism seen in the hair patterns of men and women. On average, men have more body hair than women. Males have more terminal hair, especially on the face, chest, abdomen, and back, and females have more vellus hair, which is less visible. The halting of hair development at a juvenile stage, vellus hair, would also be consistent with the neoteny evident in humans, especially in females, and thus they could have occurred at the same time.^[25]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Human_.22hairlessness.22

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on June 20, 2011 at 6:11am

I've always wondered if there were primitive men and women tripping on their hair before sharp objects were invented, or if head hair that grows past our feet is a relatively new characteristic, perhaps a secondary trait of sexual selection?

 

Regardless, interesting stuff. I enjoyed the aquatic ape ted talk as well as the refresher on the weirdness of human hair (or lackthereof).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aimee Eisiminger on June 21, 2011 at 1:06am

I have heard of this, though it has been pushed aside somewhat. I suspect, though I have not listened to the talk yet, that it is not beyond the impossible and in fact as far as I can tell evolution has the ability to help organisms to adapt quickly to changing environments. There may have been a time when a portion of our species were somewhat aquatic. There is a small tribe in the south Pacific who are great swimmers and their eyes have adapted to swimming under water and they can see much better than we while submerged (this is salt water). Now I shall go and watch the talk.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page