Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (225)	9/13/1999 10:34:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

In that case, we would expect to findat least some of these adaptations to be paralleled in other savannah mammals No two histories will be exactly the same. Still there are similarities. The chimps share early human like tool use, the baboons frequently move upright to survey the savanna, and bonobos share a similar sexual adaptation. Aquatic ape theories are interesting but I favor the theory that hairlessness was due to wearing of clothes, which made insect and tick infestations more likely. (We lack many other aquatic adaptations such as more uniform fat distribution, efficent swimming, or aquatic ancestors). TP

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (225)	9/14/1999 8:46:00 AM
From: MikeH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Actually, there is one big flaw with the Aquatic Ape Theory. If human ancestors were a species of aquatic ape, we would be MORE represented in the fossil record. The largest fossil deposits are always found at the bottom of dead, shallow seas. Just the type of enviorment we would have likely lived in (think Lousiana Bayou). If we lived in this enviorment, human ancestors would have a higher presence in the fossil record due to more mishaps, and more deaths in oxygen devoid enviorments conducive to fossilization. Now, why we are hairless has always been an enigma to me. I've never heard a good theory, but the best is the wearing of hides. However, we wouldn't start wearing hides unless we were cold to start with. And, this would probably be due to a lack heavy fur (catch 22). So, that really leaves the parasitic pest outbreak theory (humans decimated by a strain of tick or lice carrying a deadly virus) or divine intervention. However, this theory does have historic precident, bubonic plague has always been a human misery, and is carried by fleas. Since we lost our fur, we are slightly less susceptable to plague.

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (225)	9/14/1999 6:37:00 PM
From: Akula	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

As I see it there is no reason to have an AAT. We share 99% of our genotype with modern chimpanzees (phenotypical issues are irrelevant). Current theory holds that the Homo, Gorilla, and Pan geni diverged from a common ape-like ancesor in the distant past. The fact that humans are bipedal nearly alone among savannah animals is irrelevant. Not every form of species must be reproduced by convergent evolution. There is plenty of reason to believe that we are bipedal both to support our brain mass and to see above savannah grass. The loss of hair need not be explained - everything in evolution need not have a cause, just a reason why it should not happen. And if we are semiaquatic, why aren't we more streamlined?