Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Early human ancestors were ‘aquatic apes’


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#46    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 12 May 2013 - 05:31 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 12 May 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

We homo sapians  are still pretty hairy:) so the event of losing that hair had to be fairly resent in the evolution process.

It depends on what one considers "fairly recent" since, per Rogers et al (2004) this appears to have occurred c.1.2 million years ago.

Source:  Genetic Variation at the MC1R Locus and the Time since Loss of Human Body Hair. Current Anthropology. Vol. 45. No. 1. February 2004

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#47    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:33 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 12 May 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

It depends on what one considers "fairly recent" since, per Rogers et al (2004) this appears to have occurred c.1.2 million years ago.

Source:  Genetic Variation at the MC1R Locus and the Time since Loss of Human Body Hair. Current Anthropology. Vol. 45. No. 1. February 2004

cormac

We don`nt really know if earlier homo sapians were hairless, much like we don`nt know if the dinos were hairless or unfeathered. :)


#48    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:35 AM

View Postdocyabut2, on 13 May 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

We don`nt really know if earlier homo sapians were hairless, much like we don`nt know if the dinos were hairless or unfeathered. :)

Considering that Homo sapiens only date to c.200,000 BP then yes, we rather DO know that they (we) were hairless.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#49    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:21 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 13 May 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

Considering that Homo sapiens only date to c.200,000 BP then yes, we rather DO know that they (we) were hairless.

cormac


Right, but we are really only guessing if earlier homo sapians were as hairless, as they are today.


http://www.telegraph...nd-in-dung.html


#50    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 14 May 2013 - 03:25 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 14 May 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Right, but we are really only guessing if earlier homo sapians were as hairless, as they are today.


http://www.telegraph...nd-in-dung.html

No as, once again, the gene/s responsible for the loss of human hair place this back to c.1.2 million years ago which means they have nothing to do with Homo sapiens. That you don't appear to understand this is beside the point. It should also be pointed out that the hairs found in the coprolite, per your link, don't mean that the individual involved was covered in hair to begin with but only that whatever was digested included said hair. There is a distinction there that you're apparently missing.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#51    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:08 AM

http://anthropology....irless-primate/


#52    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:26 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 15 May 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:


The above link is totally useless as should have been noticed by the following:

Quote

paleontological evidence for an aquatic phase of human existence has proven elusive

Which means that there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Also you seem to not know that there is a difference between a member of the genus "Homo" in general and the specific species "Homo sapiens" and are now relying on an article about ancestors that existed before the Australopithecines, which themselves were likely hairy, c.4,000,000 BP.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#53    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:11 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 15 May 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

The above link is totally useless as should have been noticed by the following:



Which means that there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Also you seem to not know that there is a difference between a member of the genus "Homo" in general and the specific species "Homo sapiens" and are now relying on an article about ancestors that existed before the Australopithecines, which themselves were likely hairy, c.4,000,000 BP.

cormac

I don`nt know cormac, but it seems homo sapians in losing the hair had something to do with water making the gene go dorment ,perhaps salt water. Salt is a natural abrasive. If salt is left in the hair for too long then it can rub away at the cuticles and also the scalp causing damage and hair loss. Salt also draws out water. It is dehydrating when used excessively. So again salt in the hair can cause dryness. It also strips hair of oil and can take off the outer keratin coating of the hair, as it can break down protein bonds, leading to excessive dryness

Edited by docyabut2, 15 May 2013 - 08:29 PM.


#54    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:56 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 15 May 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

I don`nt know cormac, but it seems homo sapians in losing the hair had something to do with water making the gene go dorment ,perhaps salt water. Salt is a natural abrasive. If salt is left in the hair for too long then it can rub away at the cuticles and also the scalp causing damage and hair loss. Salt also draws out water. It is dehydrating when used excessively. So again salt in the hair can cause dryness. It also strips hair of oil and can take off the outer keratin coating of the hair, as it can break down protein bonds, leading to excessive dryness

Homo sapiens didn't lose hair as it would have been an earlier member of the genus, possibly Homo erectus or H. heidelbergensis. None of which shows evidence of having spent all/nearly all of their time in water.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#55    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:48 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 15 May 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

Homo sapiens didn't lose hair as it would have been an earlier member of the genus, possibly Homo erectus or H. heidelbergensis. None of which shows evidence of having spent all/nearly all of their time in water.

cormac

Ok a question we don`nt really know if the earlier homo sapiens were hairless as they are today by discovery of the bones , because hair decomposes, so how can they guess when we did start to lose our hair a million years ago from a hommid or when?

Edited by docyabut2, 15 May 2013 - 09:51 PM.


#56    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:07 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 15 May 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

Ok a question we don`nt really know if the earlier homo sapiens were hairless as they are today by discovery of the bones , because hair decomposes, so how can they guess when we did start to lose our hair a million years ago from a hommid or when?

We can tell by the expression of the genes responsible for the presence or lack of hair. And as posted earlier said genes date to c. 1.2 million years ago. And the 'earlier homo sapiens' only date to c.200,000 years ago, so well within the timeframe for the overall loss of body hair.  All of which makes the 'aquatic ape theory' about as useless as a leg-less man at a butt kicking contest.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#57    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:00 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 15 May 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

We can tell by the expression of the genes responsible for the presence or lack of hair. And as posted earlier said genes date to c. 1.2 million years ago. And the 'earlier homo sapiens' only date to c.200,000 years ago, so well within the timeframe for the overall loss of body hair.  All of which makes the 'aquatic ape theory' about as useless as a leg-less man at a butt kicking contest.

cormac

How can they judge the gene of hairlessness went dorment 1,2million years ago.? by other mammels, hommids or what?


#58    EnderOTD

EnderOTD

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 478 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesnowta, USA

  • I tried to enter my favorite quote but the data limit was breached so you get this. Pretty anti-climatic isn't it?

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:20 PM

One of the faux educational channels did a mock-u-mentary about this,  Mermaids!!! Most of the people i know that brought it up believed it was the honest to god truth because the saw it on T.V.  I call it A.A. syndrome. Any ways who's to say we didn't lose our body hair(some of us did, not me lol), because we started makeshifting animal skins and furs to clothes our bodies as we slowly migrated to cooler climates?  I didn't see that anywhere but just my couple cents.


#59    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,629 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 15 May 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

How can they judge the gene of hairlessness went dorment 1,2million years ago.? by other mammels, hommids or what?

They compare the expression and differences between the gene from looking at same within 1) humans versus chimpanzees; 2) Africans versus Europeans and 3) include a comparison of Hss (us) and Neanderthal genes. All together of which points to a timeframe of c.1.2 million years BP.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#60    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:49 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 15 May 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

They compare the expression and differences between the gene from looking at same within 1) humans versus chimpanzees; 2) Africans versus Europeans and 3) include a comparison of Hss (us) and Neanderthal genes. All together of which points to a timeframe of c.1.2 million years BP.

cormac


Cormac gee maybe I don`t understand:),but how can they compare a hair growing gene that  supposely went dorment in parts of our bodies  to  the chimpanzees and in the Neaderthals to 1,2million years ago when hair still grows. The Neaderthals were only about 40,000 years ago, how do we know they were as hairless as us?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users