Author Topic: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat  (Read 96970 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #200 on: October 12, 2014, 07:33:20 pm »
By the way, it's quite funny you think we aren't semi-aquatic when the majority of humans the world over frequently (usually daily sometimes multiple times in a single day) bathe in water (showers, baths, rubbing down with wet cloths/hoses, or going oldschool with rivers/beaches/ponds/lakes), when we all know pets which are kept indoors and fed just as much processed food as we are, don't need or desire baths every single day unless they get really dirty from mud etc.

Is anyone else here not semi-aquatic and able to live nakedly without fires unless you want extra comfort in the subarctic climates without bathing except when it rains like a true terrestrial animal?

How about anyone here who could really rough it up and go all natural and live on a mild climate island with a beach you can bathe in every day, tropical fruit hanging from trees, not to mention the shade the trees provide, full of mussels, crabs, insect life etc you can feast on, without any fires (as what would be the point?) I mean, I've never heard of people getting stranded on tropical islands and surviving without fire, it's just not our natural habitat! But getting stranded in a subarctic climate with no fire that's a guaranteed survival right there.

In any case, you must not be very popular with the ladies when they come over and you tell them "by the way, I don't have a working shower, as I'm a land animal, not semi-aquatic. I don't need to bathe in water, I bathe in body odor."

Filipinos are semi aquatic.  We shower 1 or 2 times a day.  And we shower before sex and after sex.  Sex in the shower is good too.

Some of the foreign employers comment about this Filipino penchant to consume too much water.

YES! Semi aquatic!  Good call.

On the flipside, we Filipinos comment about foreigners who do not shower daily, just use perfume to cover up their stink, or don't change their underwear daily.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #201 on: October 12, 2014, 10:21:36 pm »
Percentages whether 1%-4% (it's disputed, your article is one among a sea of them, some with more recent dates / better equipment / better methods) that state anywhere from 1-6% genetic difference depending on what you compare etc. As well, the genetic difference between humans/neanderthals isn't absolutely known. The point I was trying to make still stands - small genetic differences can mean dramatic physiological differences, we weren't the same species as Neanderthals, and having 1-4% of neanderthals still in us (as an article suggests it, even though you can always find one that says 10-20% to support your side of the argument) doesn't mean we are Neanderthals.

This is really getting nowhere. I mean, I keep on debunking your nonsensical claims, yet you still desperately try to equivocate and  circumvent my points without putting forward any valid points of your own.

Take the 1st claim quoted above:-   I pointed out that we already have 20% of the Neanderthal genome within us. The point being that if Neanderthals could interbreed with us then the differences between Neanderthals and humans must be negligible or they would not have been  able to  interbreed - plus the ability to interbreed means that Neanderthals are not much  different from modern humans in terms of genetic distance than the various current human  ethnic groups are from each other. I have also shown that recent, more  scientifically advanced  studies  concerning supposed "junk DNA" among other things have shown that the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is much larger than the absurd, outdated <1%  figure you gave, namely a 4 to 6 % difference. Which is pretty large compared to the pathetic  0.12% difference between Neanderthals and humans.
At any rate, my point still stands:- current scientific research makes it clear Neanderthals did not grow any fur and had other methods re cold-adaptation such as shorter limbs etc. etc.
Quote
Neanderthals did have fur according to current scientific thought, your article is one among a sea of them.
The trouble is that current scientific thought is that Neanderthals did not have fur, your notions are hopessly outdated. It is true that, decades ago,  the notion of Neanderthals being furry apelike monsters was prevalent, but, in recent years, this has all changed with Neanderthals now being presented as furless humans, now that it is known that fur would have been a physiological problem for them(as I explained previously) and now that Neanderthals have been shown to have been at least as intelligent as early humans :-

http://s.ngm.com/2008/10/neanderthals/img/neanderthal-615.jpg

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-2.jpg
 
Quote
If you actually want to contribute something, then show a single reason we would evolve subcutaneous fat while not being semiaquatic animals. In case you're confused, subcutaneous fat doesn't just mean "lots of fat", it means our fat is under our skin directly, like a dolphins, rather than around our organs, like true land based animals.
OK here goes:- pigs have subcutaneous fat but are not known to be semiaquatic animals, let alone aquatic ones.

Also:-
http://www.humansexualevolution.com/blog/?p=276

Quote
Furthermore, I was not unclear about Neanderthals extinction vs. lifespan, your ignorant assumption did all of the muddying of the water for you.
No, you just, as usual, explained things so badly that you effectively were writing about something quite different.

Quote
Again, your assumption is that Yaghans used fires for "extra comfort and that's all". You don't know this, you weren't there, yet you give facts as if you were, this is the foundation of all your problems leading to a view of reality which is based on imagined ideas assumed to be facts without ever having given a logical deduction to the idea.
Unlike you, I simply used logic and common sense to make my point. If the Yaghans  had to depend on fires ALL the time to survive, then they would have swiftly died out long before because , in times of scarcity, there might not be enough wood for a fire or the current weather(eg:- flooding) might prevent a fire from being lit - therefore, since the Yaghans must at some stages have been without access to fires, they must have been able to adapt to their environment. Now, unlike you, I do not assume some form of so-called "perfect" adaptation as plenty of  cold-adapted wild animals do not even have such an ability, I just mean that the Yaghans obviously could survive without fire, they just used fire in order to warm themselves up more, that's all.


Quote
There's no misunderstanding, there are of course some humans Yaghan derivatives, which are better adapted to cold climates, but there are no humans which are better adapted to cold climates than warm climates (speaking of temperatures only, not sunlight exposure), giving the obvious and unwavering fact that humans in general are better adapted to warm climates(our natural climate is therefore a warm one, even for Yaghans, even though they have been living in a cold one for 10,000 years, which to some puny minded individuals seems like a long time, but it isnt on an evolutionary scale), what the ideal warm climate is remains to be deduced.

You have again overlooked the obvious conclusion. The Yaghans have been shown to have a higher body temperature and a higher metabolism. This means that if they had moved to a much  hotter environment(such as East Africa), then they would have suffered far more than an East African Negro who was better adapted to such a warm climate.

In the case of Caucasians, most would prefer temperate climates even without access to technology. After all, without technology, there is no air-conditioning with strong chances of sunburn etc..For whites living in warm climates like Saudi Arabia minus air-conditioning is pure hell. I experienced that once.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 12:38:17 am by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #202 on: October 12, 2014, 10:30:14 pm »
Re PC's last post:- Although I am not a member, there is an unofficial  world community out there who do not wash at all. Some  wash  with water but  without soap.

I do not see using  a shower as a sign that my ancestors used to always be by the coast or swimming in rivers or whatever. Plenty of evidence exists to show that a lot of palaeo humans  lived far inland anyway. And all animals need water to wash or  drink, they do not have to originate from an aquatic environment.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #203 on: October 12, 2014, 10:35:46 pm »
Filipinos are semi aquatic.  We shower 1 or 2 times a day.  And we shower before sex and after sex.  Sex in the shower is good too.

Some of the foreign employers comment about this Filipino penchant to consume too much water.

YES! Semi aquatic!  Good call.

On the flipside, we Filipinos comment about foreigners who do not shower daily, just use perfume to cover up their stink, or don't change their underwear daily.
Well, you lot live in a humid, tropical country so one would expect you to wash frequently!

Then, of course, there is the issue of  number of sweat glands. I believe Japanese find that we caucasians smell a bit even if we thoroughly wash ourselves every day.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #204 on: October 12, 2014, 11:40:42 pm »
I really appreciate it now that there is a more civilized debate between you two.
It gets us readers informed when I read that one is coming from another paradigm which has another definition of terms and defending that.
You guys need to define terminologies and words.
Like what is defined as warm weather place, what is defined as cold weather place.
As far as research on neanderthals go, it flip flops year to year.
Rest assured that some of us appreciate what you both write and really, think about it as information exchange.
Knowledge porn.

I would also look into the point of view of the prehistoric WOMEN and their NEW BORN CHILDREN.
In what environment would it be ideal for naked pregnant women and new born babies to be?
Tiny help less little cuties.
Where would they survive?
Where would they flourish?
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #205 on: October 13, 2014, 12:40:54 am »
Not in the palaeolithic era, given the mass infanticide practised in palaeo times.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #206 on: October 13, 2014, 01:08:48 am »
Ah yes, East Africans have developed elongated limbs and bodies which make them better adapted to the heat. The fact that neither Caucasians nor East Asians have such characteristics means they are unlikely to be suited to warm climates. Indeed East Asians have extra characteristics, such as a lack of facial hair which helps against the cold(stops ice forming in hair).
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline Brad462

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #207 on: October 13, 2014, 03:28:06 am »
Why is without technology even part of this discussion?  Paleo humans had a short lifespan.  Surviving anywhere without technology is going to be very difficult.
I'm actually a really nice guy, once you get to blow me.

— Anthony Jeselnik

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #208 on: October 13, 2014, 04:06:02 am »
Why is without technology even part of this discussion? ... Surviving anywhere without technology is going to be very difficult.

I think your question and statement illustrate the point of this discussion. The use of technology broadened the range (habitable regions) of paleolithic people. Here, we are discussing to what extent the body is able to physically adapt (such as by means of an increase in brown adipose tissue) to a region on earth without technology (such as fire and the craft of building a shelter).

There are various definitions of technology (the Greek base means the study of a craft), so you may define picking up a stick to dig in the ground as early technology... or you may be more specific - perhaps because many non-human primates use very simple tools.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline nummi

  • Warrior
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #209 on: October 13, 2014, 05:28:04 am »
The mind is like a limb. It enables the manipulation of the environment and objects. In this regard what the mind helps create is not technology but simply the result of using the limb. Us being who we are.

Quote
Why is without technology even part of this discussion?
To make truth clearer.
Our mind defines us.

What was once, long ago, however long ago, is in truth rather irrelevant in practical terms, because these are not those times and also in between there and now lies so much.
Instead of looking how our ancestors lived it is best to look what is best for us right now. What was best for our ancestors somewhere down the line does not immediately mean it is best for us right now, because down to the smallest detail it is not, only generally speaking it applies to a large extent but still is not a perfect fit (can't live in the conditions and environments of the past because they do not exist in the present).
The world is not what it was, we are not who our ancestors were; if we live in the past then we do not move on. And if we don't move on then we're nothing, as the past from this perspective of ours' does not exist and us clinging to something nonexistent makes us what exactly?

What was optimal for our ancestors is not optimal for us.

There are many possibilities and probabilities, some likelier than others. Plus many (most?) key pieces of knowledge not available to us... at the moment...

Offline JeuneKoq

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
  • It's french for "Cockerel"
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #210 on: October 13, 2014, 05:48:30 am »
 "when you don't know where you are going, look back at where you came from"
African proverb.

 ;)

Offline Brad462

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #211 on: October 13, 2014, 05:57:22 am »
well, guess we are fucked then.  try not to be a cunt.- the buddha
I'm actually a really nice guy, once you get to blow me.

— Anthony Jeselnik

Offline Brad462

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #212 on: October 13, 2014, 06:40:25 am »
Try to hold your breath underwater and then tell me humans are semiaquatic. :)  I am ignorant on the subject, but I don't believe we fit the definition.
I'm actually a really nice guy, once you get to blow me.

— Anthony Jeselnik

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #213 on: October 13, 2014, 06:49:51 am »
Pigs and other "land animals" which are relatively naked either live partly underground like naked moles or are wallowers. Wild humans aren't underground animals or wallowers, so all that's left is aquatic or semiaquatic. Aquatic makes no sense, so all that's left is semiaquatic. You found an example of a land animal that has subcutaneous fat that is a wallower, which a human is not. You still cannot find an example of a land animal that does not wallow, yet is still relatively naked with subcutaneous fat, because that's just not how animals evolve. Basically, you found a way to meet the minimum requirements of what I asked you to find, without actually finding something to discredit the overwhelming evidence we are semiaquatic. Therefore, your finding is useless, although a great waste of your time.

You are resorting to posting more wild claims by cherry picking articles from Google, anyone can do that to support any crazy viewpoint. This is useless to everyone. Use your own brain for once Tyler and see what's staring you in the face.

As about the people who don't use showers, I never said they had to use showers, I also said washing with wet cloths (when bodies of water aren't around), however this is a technological substitute that doesn't exist in nature, so therefore can't be our natural habitat. Similar logic follows for wallowing in mud.

About Yaghans, if there was no wood for fire, then where did all of the plant life suddenly go and how did the Yaghans feed themselves? You completely lack the ability to use logic and reason, despite fantasizing you have the ability.

Of course, your brain is simply unable to admit you are wrong, but the others here might benefit from such an obvious fact.


Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #214 on: October 13, 2014, 07:29:04 am »
Quote
Try to hold your breath underwater and then tell me humans are semiaquatic. :)  I am ignorant on the subject, but I don't believe we fit the definition.

We are one of the few partly land based animals with the ability to voluntarily hold our breath, giving us temporary underwater survival.

Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,769
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #215 on: October 13, 2014, 09:25:41 am »
Panacea and Tyler,, how about taking it off line, or pm each other,,  this is getting to be quite the waste of time,, this back and forth over seemingly nothing.   Each your seeming need to prove to the other, or insist the other say 'I was wrong' is not productive anymore.    Also can we move on past this techno stuff.   Peoples have been putting something on their backs probably since day one, either to block the wind or cold, or to block the sun, wind blown sand,  mosquitos, flies, and other biting bugs.  People's have also lived all over the world, cold and hot, so what is the point of this redundant obviousness?  The question really is Optimal, and may I please assume Optimal for Us,, not someone who is already dead.   
    Newcomers to this forum are going to think we're way off kilter. 

Offline Brad462

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #216 on: October 13, 2014, 09:53:19 am »
Me, off kilter?  I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER. - groucho
I'm actually a really nice guy, once you get to blow me.

— Anthony Jeselnik

Offline cherimoya_kid

  • One who bans trolls
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,513
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #217 on: October 13, 2014, 11:09:38 am »
  
    Newcomers to this forum are going to think we're way off kilter. 

This is not nearly the most credibility-damaging thread we've had recently.  Not even close. I don't know what to say about that fact.

At least this thread is raising some semi - relevant points, if not showing fully coherent discussion of those points.  *sigh*

Offline Brad462

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #218 on: October 13, 2014, 02:30:21 pm »
I don't know why you fellas care so much what "normal" people think of you.  I hate to burst your bubble, but raw paleo, and even cooked paleo diets are still very fringe.  I would have never tried the diet if it wasn't for desperation.  Anyway...enough posting for me today.
I'm actually a really nice guy, once you get to blow me.

— Anthony Jeselnik

Offline JeuneKoq

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
  • It's french for "Cockerel"
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #219 on: October 13, 2014, 03:11:24 pm »
Van, I understand why you're tired or irritated about this- I am too in some way. The thing is, it's also very bothering when you see someone that's so obviously (at least according to yourself) in the wrong. So some may handle it in a more aggressive manner or not, the point at the end of the day when answering something that you believe is a false statement, is to make the other person actually realize that they were wrong. The key is to be open for correction of your own mistakes, and not close your mind to anything that would go against your original idea. But that's a personality thing (and hopefully it can be corrected).

Now, about this techno stuff, you might think it has no importance in defining a natural/optimal habitat for humans, while others believe it definitely has its place in this matter. So if you're unhappy that this discussion is not being handled the way you wish it was, you can go ahead and start a new subject of your own called   "human's natural/optimal habitat !!!No discussing technology here!!!".

« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 06:03:01 pm by JeuneKoq »

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,830
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #220 on: October 13, 2014, 04:02:39 pm »
I like this thread.  And I like the arguments and points made in this thread.  Maybe I'm abnormal and fringe.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 04:19:43 pm by goodsamaritan »
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #221 on: October 13, 2014, 05:57:33 pm »
Pigs and other "land animals" which are relatively naked either live partly underground like naked moles or are wallowers.
This is pure nonsense as usual. Wild boar, from which  domesticated pigs are descended from actually prefer to live in forests but are so highly adaptable that some can even live in deserts:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_boar#Habitat

So this nonsense re living underground and "wallowing" is meaningless given wild boars' preference for forests and ubiquitous  adaptation, like humans, to a multitude of diverse environments like deserts.
Quote
As about the people who don't use showers, I never said they had to use showers, I also said washing with wet cloths (when bodies of water aren't around), however this is a technological substitute that doesn't exist in nature, so therefore can't be our natural habitat. Similar logic follows for wallowing in mud.
You are getting confused here.  After all, plenty of   wild animals like to occasionally swim or  even sometimes douse themselves in water without their being considered to be either aquatic or semi-aquatic. Similiarly,   modern humans using a shower or bath  are not  indications that early hominids used to always live in swamps or other aquatic environments. It just means they wish to clean themselves.
Quote
About Yaghans, if there was no wood for fire, then where did all of the plant life suddenly go and how did the Yaghans feed themselves?
Again, you miss the point. Wood would not always have been available for fire. After all,  the  available wood could have been soaked by storms or flooding,  for example,  plus the Yaghans could not always have been in a position to light a fire during every  single activity they did such as hunting and foraging. So, if fire was so  absolutely essential to their survival, as you claim, how come they were able to survive at times during periods with no access to any fires, such as when hunting or foraging?



« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 06:06:00 pm by TylerDurden »
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #222 on: October 13, 2014, 06:04:08 pm »
Van and co have a point:- PC and I were talking about at cross-purposes. I was trying to make it clear that humans  and ancient hominids are/were  highly adaptable to all sorts of  varying environments without need of  extra technology, while PCA was talking about the original habitat that humans supposedly came from, which he thinks was an aquatic environment.

Ok, if as van and co suggest, we ignore all references to technology and focus on modern humans,  not early hominids, then, obviously, East Asians are best suited for a colder climate, Caucasians for a more temperate climate, and SubSaharan Africans for a hotter climate. Seems awfully straightforward, given the various different physical adaptations of the three groups.
"During the last campaign I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more. No more.
" Ron Paul.

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #223 on: October 14, 2014, 12:42:29 am »
Lol Tyler, from the same wikipedia page and paragraph you posted:

Quote
In order to survive in a given area, wild boars require a habitat fulfilling three conditions: heavily brushed areas providing shelter from predators, water for drinking and bathing purposes and an absence of regular snowfall



Talk about having an egg on your face.

The requirement for wild boars to survive is to be able to wallow, it's not a "I like to do it thing." They can and will die off eventually if they never do it. You're simply wrong. It's a requirement for survival. Boars need to wallow/live part of their lives submerged in water (or water in the form of muddy water) to survive, just like humans. There are no humans that live without wallowing/dousing/living without routinely applying water on the surface of their skin, besides many animals like wolves who can.

I never said humans lived in an aquatic environment, I said our natural habitat is semiaquatic. That means living partly on land and partly in water. That is what boars and humans do. You can say that just bathing/wallowing doesn't make boars semiaquatic, but you'd be wrong, because it's essential for survival. No matter what boars are defined as on wikipedia, their actual natural habitat defines their actual natural nature, and their actual natural habitat includes wallowing in water, and roaming around on land - semiaquatic, semiterrestrial, they mean the same thing.

So, in conclusion, unequivocally, humans depend on water, not just for drinking but for the exterior of our bodies, which defines us as semiaquatic (relying on bodies of water to exist), and our bodies reflect that with our evolutionary adaptations of subcutaneous fat, voluntary breathing, natural breath-hold instincts of children, relatively naked skin, etc.

About AAH (aquatic ape theory):
Quote
Proponents of AAH suggest that many features that distinguish humans from their nearest evolutionary relatives emerged because the ancestors of humans underwent a period when they were adapting to a semiaquatic existence, but returned to terrestrial life before having become fully adapted to the aquatic environment. Variations within the hypothesis suggests these protohumans to have spent time either wading, swimming or diving on the shores of fresh, brackish, alkaline or saline waters, and feeding on littoral resources

What part of that do you not understand is obviously backed by a mountain of tangible evidence, and is not "consequently debunked" or "discredited" in any way whatsoever? What part of you are wrong are you not getting?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2014, 01:02:46 am by panacea »

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #224 on: October 14, 2014, 12:55:17 am »
Just finished reading the rest of your post Tyler, more flimsy logic:

Quote
Again, you miss the point. Wood would not always have been available for fire. After all,  the  available wood could have been soaked by storms or flooding,  for example,  plus the Yaghans could not always have been in a position to light a fire during every  single activity they did such as hunting and foraging. So, if fire was so  absolutely essential to their survival, as you claim, how come they were able to survive at times during periods with no access to any fires, such as when hunting or foraging?

If it flooded, the wood would be the least of their problems, but alas they lived near cape horn so it wasn't a problem (use your brain).
As about rain, they had rock shelters, language, boats, and fire, but weren't smart enough to protect the wood from rain? Are you kidding me? They had at least as much intelligence as you, and even you could understand the concept of protecting your firewood from rain. Your attempts to support your imaginary facts (that they didnt use fires a lot, even though reports say they did, and you weren't there) are just getting ridiculous.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk