|
Post by brandt on Jan 25, 2012 14:00:22 GMT 10
I would not be shocked to find that developing tools and methods (and thereby selecting those that were better at it) would have changed our biologies. It would make a good deal of sense actually and is far from the childhood "just so" stories which are best exemplified by the story of why the elephant has a long nose.
In any case that dramatic change in the hunting and eating habits would change the selection pressures on the species. This is certainly worth more examination. I have put it on my list. I have to clear a few other items that are eating up my time but I do intend to get into this matter as soon as I can free up the time.
Sooo, what would any of you do to begin to examine this hypothesis? If the hypothesis were true what should we expect to see now?
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Jan 26, 2012 12:13:36 GMT 10
"Sooo, what would any of you do to begin to examine this hypothesis?"
Instead of working backward and seeking an explanation for what we already know, try to be predictive with things that not obvious. For instance, try to find curious things semi-aquatic animals are three or four times more likely to have than land animals and see if they are common in humans. Then examine the savanna theory the same way and compare the results.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 26, 2012 14:14:31 GMT 10
I am not sure what you mean by "semi-aquatic?" Care to help me out a bit there.
I try not to work backwards, that has a tendency to drop me into a quagmire of stuff that I don't want to get mired in. You are entirely correct in avoiding that as a starting point.
Apes that swim and reap the bounty of the ocean. I was thinking about looking up some of colleagues that are involved in brain development and discussing with them diet and development. That may yield some tractable hypotheses.
How do you think adopting a fishing/shellfish collecting lifestyle would have changed the environment of EEA? By April I will have a couple of months to conduct a literature review on relevant subjects. It would be certainly worth time to examine.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 26, 2012 16:34:53 GMT 10
I am not sure what you mean by "semi-aquatic?" Care to help me out a bit there. Beavers, otters, water rats, seals, hippos, pigs, polar bears, elephants, capybaras, proboscis monkeys.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 26, 2012 16:36:39 GMT 10
EEA?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 26, 2012 23:39:57 GMT 10
EEA = environment of evolutionary adaptedness
It a description of the environment in which a species was adapted. Basically a sum of all the selection pressures that a species experienced.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 7, 2012 21:24:20 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 27, 2012 8:54:58 GMT 10
Haenyo[Excerpt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Linked Above]
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 29, 2012 10:04:36 GMT 10
Superficially there is a debate between the savanna theory of our evolutionary past and the Aquatic Ape Theory. This may be a false dichotomy. Ours is obviously NOT a highly specialized species restricted to a narrow ecological niche. Instead we are extremely generalized omnivores. Among primates we exploit a uniquely wide diversity of environments and this is reflected in the obvious fact that we are evolved to both run and swim. Other omnivorous generalists like pigs and water rats have adapted to both terrestrial and aquatic foraging and the remains of our ancestral meals in the form of bone deposits and shell middens suggest that we evolved a similarly flexible lifestyle. huntgatherlove.com/content/missing-aquatic-aspect-paleo-diets
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 29, 2012 11:16:05 GMT 10
Among primates we exploit a uniquely wide diversity of environments and this is reflected in the obvious fact that we are evolved to both run and swim. Modern Triathlon
|
|