1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ANTHROPOLOGY.PALEO

  • AAT or not

    From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 7 12:46:41 2023
    How scientists perceive the evolutionary origin of human traits:
    Results of a survey study
    Hanna Tuomisto, Matleena Tuomisto, Jouni Tuomisto 2018
    doi org/10.1002/ece3.3887 open access

    From the conclusion:
    ... If, for the sake of argument, we accept the most popular explanation (savanna & running fantasies --mv) for each trait to be the correct one, a scenario of evolution by internal drive emerges:
    -the large brain evolved because complex social organization required higher intelligence,
    -the subcutaneous fat layer evolved to serve as an energy reserve for the developing brain,
    -articulate speech evolved because there was social pressure for elaborate communication,
    -the larynx descended because this was required by articulate speech, -bipedalism evolved to make the use of tools and weapons easier,
    -nakedness evolved to avoid overheating when hunting.
    For most traits, the next most popular explanation was not far behind in popularity.
    Most of these were also based on inherent drivers, but sometimes in the opposite temporal sequence, e.g.
    - articulate speech was triggered by the descended larynx,
    - large brain evolved because it was required by articulate speech.
    We found this result disturbing, because the overwhelming popularity of hypotheses based on inherent drivers gives the impression that human evolution is generally thought to have been goal-directed.
    This would be in conflict with the current understanding (explained in every evolutionary biology textbook) that evolution has no foresight.
    ...
    ____

    The conclusion is clear: savanna believers are unscientific.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is so reasonable@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Mar 7 13:32:43 2023
    [email protected] wrote:

    From the conclusion:
    ... If, for the sake of argument, we accept the most popular explanation (savanna & running fantasies --mv) for each
    trait to be the correct one, a scenario of evolution by internal drive emerges:

    Which is stupid. Because it intentionally ignores nearly all the facts, all the observations.

    -the large brain evolved because complex social organization required higher intelligence,

    This is called "Intelligent Design." Someone decided that large brains would be better, just
    as we assume that they weren't for Gorillas, Chimps (etc), so they grew them large.

    Nope.

    And what did they use to grow them? Where did the DHA and the excess protein come from?

    In Aquatic Ape, they were chowing down on Omega-3 rich seafood, *Way* more DHA than
    they could know what to do with. Their brains got just as big as genetics would allow, and
    when a "Bigger Brain" mutation cropped up, it could actually happen! They could grow
    even larger brains!

    Without the diet, such a mutation could arise and it couldn't benefit them one iota. What
    good is a big brain mutation when you don't have the Omega-3s to grow a bigger brain?

    It's like owning a Maserati and not being able to find any gasoline!

    That's it. First bullet point and savanna idiocy is exposed as idiocy.

    No reason to take it any further. Once the boat is sunk, no point in poking any more
    holes in it...





    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/711010160334766080

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Tue Mar 7 16:03:14 2023
    The *combination* of comparative biology leaves 0 doubt:
    where do we see large brain + fur loss + SC fat + flat feet + ext.nose + breath control + laryng.descent etc.?
    Large brain can have other explanations, fur loss id., fat belly id., etc.
    but the *combination* of all this means: (semi)aquaticness.
    Say, each of these has only 1 chance in 2 to be of aquatic origin (often it's much more):
    = 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/32 not of aq.origin.

    Take alone pachyosteosclerosis in H.erectus: it's *only* seen in slow+shallow divers
    (100 %, but I'm still not sure: only in *salt* water? how salty?)



    How scientists perceive the evolutionary origin of human traits:
    Results of a survey study
    Hanna Tuomisto, Matleena Tuomisto, Jouni Tuomisto 2018
    doi org/10.1002/ece3.3887 open access
    From the conclusion:
    ... If, for the sake of argument, we accept the most popular explanation (savanna & running fantasies --mv) for each trait to be the correct one, a scenario of evolution by internal drive emerges:
    -the large brain evolved because complex social organization required higher intelligence,
    -the subcutaneous fat layer evolved to serve as an energy reserve for the developing brain,
    -articulate speech evolved because there was social pressure for elaborate communication,
    -the larynx descended because this was required by articulate speech, -bipedalism evolved to make the use of tools and weapons easier,
    -nakedness evolved to avoid overheating when hunting.
    For most traits, the next most popular explanation was not far behind in popularity.
    Most of these were also based on inherent drivers, but sometimes in the opposite temporal sequence, e.g.
    - articulate speech was triggered by the descended larynx,
    - large brain evolved because it was required by articulate speech.
    We found this result disturbing, because the overwhelming popularity of hypotheses based on inherent drivers gives the impression that human evolution is generally thought to have been goal-directed.
    This would be in conflict with the current understanding (explained in every evolutionary biology textbook) that evolution has no foresight.

    The conclusion is clear: savanna believers are unscientific.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)