Why have many (semi)aquatic mammals evolved larger brains?
Is carrying a heavy brain/head less disadvantageous in the water generally than in flying?climbing?running animals?
Are fast head movements less necessary in swimming/diving tetrapods than in flying?running/clmibing tetrapods?
Why do many arboreal animals have rel.larger head than terrestrial ones?
...?

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

[email protected] wrote:

Why have many (semi)aquatic mammals evolved larger brains?

Pretty simple: High (all?) protein diet and brain-building Omega-3s.

Is carrying a heavy brain/head less disadvantageous in the water
generally than in flying?climbing?running animals?

Someone speaking on the topic of Exobiology/Astrobiology spoke about
the problem intelligence faces in the water. They concluded that the
instances of "Water Worlds" would be greater than zero, and none of
those planets could ever produce intelligent, technological civilizations.

Probably the most intelligent marine species is the Octopus. And I would
argue that he evolved such intelligence BECAUSE it has the appendages,
it can manipulate things.

It's the perfect model! It didn't need to get more intelligent but if and
when a "More Intelligent" gene cropped up, it could be selected for
BECAUSE it had the means to employ it!

And I argue the same for humans.

We didn't grow larger/more intelligent brains because "That would be
good." I don't subscribe to Intelligent Design. I feel EVOLUTION is the
right answer. And with Aquatic Ape, our ancestors were growing their
brains every bit as large as GENETICS would allow.

That probably wasn't very large at all.

But eventually as bigger-brain mutations cropped up, as bipedalism
freed their hands, as they could put more intelligence to use, they got smarter.

Aquatic mammals such as whales are mammals. They aren't fish.
Their bodies have adapted to living under water but they are mammalian
bodies that only look fish like. They respond like mammals, and they
were able to evolve communications that fish only dream of.

Well. I doubt fish dream of communications. I don't even know if they
dream. I somehow doubt it...

I just Googled it. The answer is "Eh." Nobody knows, most seem to
doubt it.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715578920636907520

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

Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 21:55:20 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

Thanks, JTEM.
Odontocetes have rel.very large brains, Sirenia don't - both have DHA?
Octopus i don't know.

Why have many (semi)aquatic mammals evolved larger brains?

Pretty simple: High (all?) protein diet and brain-building Omega-3s.

Is carrying a heavy brain/head less disadvantageous in the water
generally than in flying?climbing?running animals?

Someone speaking on the topic of Exobiology/Astrobiology spoke about
the problem intelligence faces in the water. They concluded that the instances of "Water Worlds" would be greater than zero, and none of
those planets could ever produce intelligent, technological civilizations.

Probably the most intelligent marine species is the Octopus. And I would argue that he evolved such intelligence BECAUSE it has the appendages,
it can manipulate things.

It's the perfect model! It didn't need to get more intelligent but if and when a "More Intelligent" gene cropped up, it could be selected for
BECAUSE it had the means to employ it!

And I argue the same for humans.

We didn't grow larger/more intelligent brains because "That would be
good." I don't subscribe to Intelligent Design. I feel EVOLUTION is the
right answer. And with Aquatic Ape, our ancestors were growing their
brains every bit as large as GENETICS would allow.

That probably wasn't very large at all.

But eventually as bigger-brain mutations cropped up, as bipedalism
freed their hands, as they could put more intelligence to use, they got smarter.

Aquatic mammals such as whales are mammals. They aren't fish.
Their bodies have adapted to living under water but they are mammalian
bodies that only look fish like. They respond like mammals, and they
were able to evolve communications that fish only dream of.

Well. I doubt fish dream of communications. I don't even know if they
dream. I somehow doubt it...

I just Googled it. The answer is "Eh." Nobody knows, most seem to
doubt it.

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

[email protected] wrote:

Odontocetes have rel.very large brains, Sirenia don't - both have DHA? Octopus i don't know.

It's not a case where any creature that ate a clam needs to have a huge
brain or we're wrong.

It is a case where HUMANS need DHA. We need it. It's a major component
to our brains. We need to have it. And prior to 80k years ago, according to
the Molecular Clock adherents, there's no way we could have gotten it
short of marine resources.

That's it.

Elephants? Sea Lions? Squirrels? Goldfish? Gerbils?

Honestly? I don't care. I really don't. My topic here is human origins and regardless of what any other species needs, humans need DHA.

Aquatic Ape solves the problem.

It's also testable.

I suspect, in the model, that Lucy & kin are an inland population of the Aquatic Ape group. They pushed inland, radiated & adapted. And their
brains shrunk. Just as modern man's brains have shrunk since the
advent of historical times.

Change in diet.

Of course we have to get paleo anthropology to join the real world,
become a science. We have too identify where the Aquatic Ape
population would have been living, go dig there, and compare their
anatomy... look for differences such as brain size.

We're up against a lot here: Cost. Government policy. Plate tectonics. Preservation bias. The ocean.

Dredging is extremely "Intrusive," to say the least, but if it weren't used
as a method of excavation, if it wasn't replacing digs but identifying
WHERE to dig, by dredging up archaeology, I can't see any alternative.

We can test Aquatic Ape.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715624352521060352

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

Op woensdag 26 april 2023 om 22:05:09 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

[email protected] wrote:

Odontocetes have rel.very large brains, Sirenia don't - both have DHA? Octopus i don't know.

It's not a case where any creature that ate a clam needs to have a huge brain or we're wrong.
It is a case where HUMANS need DHA. We need it. It's a major component
to our brains. We need to have it. And prior to 80k years ago, according to the Molecular Clock adherents, there's no way we could have gotten it
short of marine resources.
That's it.
Elephants? Sea Lions? Squirrels? Goldfish? Gerbils?
Honestly? I don't care. I really don't.

You should: comparative infm.

My topic here is human origins and
regardless of what any other species needs, humans need DHA.
Aquatic Ape solves the problem.
It's also testable.
I suspect, in the model, that Lucy & kin are an inland population of the Aquatic Ape group.

Lucy cs (Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis) was aquarboreal, late-Pliocene, and early-Pleistocene boisei became even more gorilla-like, e.g.
- “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla.” Ryan & Johanson 1989.
- The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
- "...afarensis LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987.
- “A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann 1989.
- The pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984.
- “Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization
shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel cs 1984.
- Chad KT 12 A.cf.afarensis: "The non-hominid fauna contains aquatic taxa (such as Siluridae, Trionyx, cf.Tomistoma), taxa adapted to wooded habitats (such as Loxodonta, Kobus, Kolpochoerus) and to more open areas (such as Ceratotherium, Hipparion) …
compatible with a lakeside environment". Brunet cs 1995.
- Hadar, Afar Locality: "Generally, the sediments represent lacustrine, lake margin, and associated fluvial deposits related to an extensive lake that periodically filled the entire basin". Johanson cs 1982.
- Hadar AL.333 A.afarensis: "The bones were found in swale-like features … very likely that they died and partially rotted at or very near this site … this group of hominids was buried in streamside gallery woodland". Radosevich cs 1992.
- Hadar AL.288 A.afarensis Lucy lay in a small, slow moving stream: "Fossil preservation at this locality is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws being found". Johanson & Taieb 1976.

They pushed inland, radiated & adapted. And their
brains shrunk. Just as modern man's brains have shrunk since the
advent of historical times.

More likely, very large brains appeared only in Homo (not in apes-australopiths), possibly only early-Pleistocene.

Change in diet.
Of course we have to get paleo anthropology to join the real world,
become a science. We have too identify where the Aquatic Ape
population would have been living, go dig there, and compare their anatomy... look for differences such as brain size.

Early- & mid-Pleistocene H.erectus at Java & elsewhere had very thick & dense bones (pachy-osteo-sclerosis):
this facilitates diving, and is exclusively seen in slow+shallow-diving tetrapods:
they were the molluscivorous "aq.apes" (sensu early-Pleist. littoral Homo) you're looking for:
stone tools, shell engravings, island colonizations etc.

We're up against a lot here: Cost. Government policy. Plate tectonics. Preservation bias. The ocean.
Dredging is extremely "Intrusive," to say the least, but if it weren't used as a method of excavation, if it wasn't replacing digs but identifying
WHERE to dig, by dredging up archaeology, I can't see any alternative.
We can test Aquatic Ape.

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

[email protected] wrote:

They pushed inland, radiated & adapted. And their
brains shrunk. Just as modern man's brains have shrunk since the
advent of historical times.

More likely, very large brains appeared only in Homo (not in apes-australopiths),
possibly only early-Pleistocene.

We needn't concern ourselves with "very large brains." What we need to
look for is LARGER brains.

Yes, even if that means going from small to small-but-not-quite-as-small.

The point is that in the case of Aquatic Ape, their brains were going to be just as large as genetics would allow, even if that's not very large. And a splinter group -- a break away population descended from a group that
pushed inland and adapted -- should NOT have brains just as large as
genetics would allow.

The only issue is timing.

Clearly this would not be the case before any mutations that allowed for
bigger brains. And it might not be the case in any population after the mutation which helps us to synthesize DHA sprung up...

But we really should be able to find a difference in brain size between waterside groups and inland groups.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/95769933718

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

Op donderdag 27 april 2023 om 18:56:28 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

[email protected] wrote:

They pushed inland, radiated & adapted. And their
brains shrunk. Just as modern man's brains have shrunk since the
advent of historical times.

More likely, very large brains appeared only in Homo (not in apes-australopiths),
possibly only early-Pleistocene.

We needn't concern ourselves with "very large brains." What we need to
look for is LARGER brains.
Yes, even if that means going from small to small-but-not-quite-as-small.
The point is that in the case of Aquatic Ape, their brains were going to be just as large as genetics would allow, even if that's not very large. And a splinter group -- a break away population descended from a group that
pushed inland and adapted -- should NOT have brains just as large as
genetics would allow.
The only issue is timing.
Clearly this would not be the case before any mutations that allowed for bigger brains. And it might not be the case in any population after the mutation which helps us to synthesize DHA sprung up...
But we really should be able to find a difference in brain size between waterside groups and inland groups.

The largest brains are found in Hn (neandertal): Hn>Hs>>He>>apes-apiths.
Hn fossilized mostly?always at coasts or rivers (the Neander).
I'd think Hn seasonally followed the river inland: salmon trek??
No doubt, Hn still regularly dived: ear exostoses (men>women) & moderate pachyosteosclerosis: He>Hn>Hs=0.

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

[email protected] wrote:

The largest brains are found in Hn (neandertal): Hn>Hs>>He>>apes-apiths.
Hn fossilized mostly?always at coasts or rivers (the Neander).
I'd think Hn seasonally followed the river inland: salmon trek??
No doubt, Hn still regularly dived: ear exostoses (men>women) & moderate pachyosteosclerosis: He>Hn>Hs=0.

No, no, no; you're misunderstanding.

Australopithecines descend from an Aquatic Ape population. They are
either Aquatic Apes <sic> who pushed inland or, more probable, they
are descended from Aquatic Ape that splintered off, pushed inland.

...likely interbreeding with earlier populations to do so.

Once they moved inland, radiated out & adapted, they weren't getting
the same super high protein, high Omega-3 diet. Their brains were
shrinking. So if we find their contemporaries they should have larger
brains.

Right now paleo anthropology looks at a "Range" of brain volume and
assumes it's all just happenstance. They don't consider that habitat
AND DIET can be a huge influence here. But it not only can be but it
has to be. And we can test this.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715514590905171968

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

Op vrijdag 28 april 2023 om 01:04:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

[email protected] wrote:

The largest brains are found in Hn (neandertal): Hn>Hs>>He>>apes-apiths.
Hn fossilized mostly?always at coasts or rivers (the Neander).
I'd think Hn seasonally followed the river inland: salmon trek??
No doubt, Hn still regularly dived: ear exostoses (men>women) & moderate pachyosteosclerosis: He>Hn>Hs=0.

No, no, no; you're misunderstanding.
Australopithecines descend from an Aquatic Ape population. They are
either Aquatic Apes <sic> who pushed inland or, more probable, they
are descended from Aquatic Ape that splintered off, pushed inland.
...likely interbreeding with earlier populations to do so.
Once they moved inland, radiated out & adapted, they weren't getting
the same super high protein, high Omega-3 diet. Their brains were
shrinking. So if we find their contemporaries they should have larger
brains.

It's simpler IMO:
- Plio-Pleistocene apiths were still "aquarboreal" (rather than "aquatic") or had aquarboreal ancestors,
- and only Pleistocene Homo got very large CC (cranial capacity): shellfish-diving?

The transition from "monkey-" to "ape-like" (Miocene? even Oligocene??) was drastic, but IMO didn't include larger CC:
upright "bipedal" wading, broad sternum-thorax-pelvis, climbing arms overhead, sacralisation (less sacral, more lumbar vertebrae)...
even tail loss!
IOW, aquarboreal (google).
Miocene Hominoidea simply followed the Tethys Ocean coasts 25-20 Ma hylobatids->East, gr.apes->West.
Google "Mesopotamian Seaway Closure" c 15 Ma:
the closure of the Tethyan seaway split hominids East (Med.Sea) & pongids West (Asian Ind.Ocean coasts).

When the Red Sea began to form (c 10 Ma?), it was colonized by hominids s.s.: the ancestors of Gorilla, Homo & Pan,
and when the red Sea opened into the Gulf, Pan went right (E.Afr.coastal forests), Homo went left (Ind.Ocean coasts),
and Homo evolved larger brains when they began frequently diving for shellfish: early-Pleist.? already late-Pliocene??
H.erectus' pachy-osteo-sclerosis = shallow-diving, cf. e.g. shell engravings (google "Joordens Munro").

Right now paleo anthropology looks at a "Range" of brain volume and
assumes it's all just happenstance. They don't consider that habitat
AND DIET can be a huge influence here. But it not only can be but it
has to be. And we can test this.

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