Author Topic: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat  (Read 96693 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests 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 #175 on: October 07, 2014, 08:28:33 am »
I think it is a matter of what people's definition of "natural" and "optimal" is.  And what is considered as "technology" to be considered "foul".  And at what "era" and which humans or which human ancestors.

I think this is a good discussion that just needs to not use derogatory expletives.

There is also the question of racial origins.

I think human races were engineered... a good number of you hate that.

And some think of aquatic ape.

And some think of a multi region hypothesis.

And then there is this latest thing I just stumbled on where the theorist thinks white people are an albino mutation.  And when there were enough albino mutations of the whites they were sent off or trekked off to the colder climates and reproduced.

Albinos--The Origin of the Caucasian Race?


http://stewartsynopsis.com/chapter_7.htm

The falsity of White history begins and ends with their desire to hide their true nature; that being that they are derived from Albinos.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/White_people.htm

This is important to discuss as to what is OPTIMAL.

I do not think we have talked about this angle of White people coming from Albinos of other races.
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 colorles

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #176 on: October 07, 2014, 08:54:40 am »
the "albino origin theory" is a rather afro-centrist one, proposing a bunch of albino-africans as the "origins of the white race". these people completely ignore the indo-europeans line, and the notion that bone structure and other built in features, not skin color, is the supreme marker of race

as to:

-human engineering

-aquatic ape

-multiregional

they all make points in their own way, all three could very well be a part of human history in one way or another. same thing with how evolution does not discount creationism, and visa versa. it is what it is any way

one thing i'm quite sure of though, is that humanity has been around longer than is "officially" acknowledged, and that advanced civilizations have risen and fallen over and over again. more advanced than is being "officially" let on. there are secrets being kept (for better or for worse), and many more things still unknown maybe forever unknown. and this just in the history of our own species on our own planet, let alone in the rest of this vast cosmos. so many things we will never know, what is going on on the other side of the universe as we speak and all in between, in aspects of existence we do not even understand (oh but of course, any random scientific theory is always "the absolute truth" amirite? until some other "absolute truth" comes along and supplants it). believe me on not a "crack pot", nor am i some drum beating hippy...there is simply so much more out there/ and while i do have a certain degree of curiosity like most other creatures, if anything this feeling makes me more content, more at ease with existence. just take things as they go, its not the "end of the world" either way so to speak


« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 09:14:37 am by colorles »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #177 on: October 07, 2014, 02:50:19 pm »
The albino theory is easily disproven. One only has to look at photos of albinos of non-Caucasians  to realise that ethnic differences occur not just in the skin but everywhere else in the body.

Re Neanderthals:- There is already plenty of evidence to show that Neanderthals were adapted to the cold, on a genetic level:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12203812

Neanderthals seem to have appeared c.400,000 years ago, so  that was well before the advent of fire which was at least 100,000 to 150,000 years later.*sorry, that was fire used for cooking. At any rate, the ancestors of the neanderthals , would not have had access to fire at all.

I see panacea still hasn't been able to admit he was wrong re the Yaghan reference. For one thing, they are mentioned as having "little or no clothing", in other words, some of them must have gone around without clothing of any sort. Also, they were not always surrounded by fires, for obvious reasons, since they had to hunt etc.  At any rate, I did point out how the Yaghans had indeed genetically adapted to the cold somewhat  in that they had faster metabolic rates and higher body temperatures.

Incidentally, panacea does not seem to grasp the difference between using natural methods to resist the cold such as using rock formations to shelter in, and the use of non-natural technological methods like fire.  Wild animals frequently use natural methods to resist either excess heat or excess cold in their environment. For example, sea otters are known to raise their paws out of the water when resting,  in order to keep warm.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 04:27:27 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 Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,049
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Too long posts
« Reply #178 on: October 07, 2014, 04:02:54 pm »
Colorles, could you explain your views in shorter wording? If everyone were writing such lengthy blocks of text like you do, we would spend all of our time in reading this thread.

Say a maximum with a minimum number of words… rather then a minimum with a maximum number of word, please. Otherwise, most won’t bother to read and care about what you wrote.

By the way, I stumbled upon this part in your tirades, which couldn’t be more wrong. You confuse science with religion!! (I didn’t take the time to read the rest, sorry.)
(oh but of course, any random scientific theory is always "the absolute truth" amirite? until some other "absolute truth" comes along and supplants it).

« Last Edit: October 07, 2014, 04:13:15 pm by Iguana »
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #179 on: October 08, 2014, 01:21:06 am »
About Yaghans, being somewhat adapted to cold climates (as everyone is somewhat) does not equal being adapted to cold climates. This is basic logic, even the youngest kindergartner can understand that. I'm somewhat adapted to cold, and somewhat adapted to heat, yet I cannot live in the desert heat without technology, or the arctic wtihout technology, and therefore can't evolve naturally in the desert or arctic without technology. The yaghans can't evolve naturally in their cold climate without technological aid, there is no evidence to say they can, none, no matter how much you want to believe it's possible, they just didn't. Of course, with the aid of technology, humans are able to survive harsh climates and adapt to them, that is not the same as being completely independent of technology to live in those climates as you would be if your body was completely adapted to that climate. These are obvious deductions, why aren't you getting it Tyler?

The complete disregard for logic on Tyler Durdens part makes it impossible to debate anything with him and get anywhere. He is citing abstracts from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ which are nothing more than propositions of an anthropologist, not based on proof or evidence, but guessing or speculating as he is doing.

Furthermore, neanderthals are not modern day humans, they are different, we are talking about modern day humans. Regardless, neanderthals died out because of a cold period, and they had one of the shortest existences of any large primate in terms of years of survival. Hardly a case story for "successful adaptation".

Tyler, your inability to reason is causing you to continually spew nonsense. You need to read quietly on your own, rather than keep posting incorrect information. It is well known that humans can adapt, no one is debating this, feral human children behave like dogs, baby squirrels adopted by cat mothers learn to purr, all animals can adapt. Many people generate more brown fat, muscle, and fat to stay warm in colder areas of the globe, and while this makes it more comfortable/tolerable to live in colder climates, it doesn't allow them to do so without technology, as the first humans to migrate to colder climates had technological understanding to help them - there is no evidence otherwise. Meanwhile, this topic is about modern day humans, not neanderthals, and our natural habitat, not the one the Yaghans have been slowly adapting to but not reached adaptation to yet without technological aid over the past 10,000 years. Use common sense. Re-read it over and over again if you have to.

Furthermore, the early Yaghan people were driven to their inhospitable area due to enemies, yet, they survived, despite great uncomfort. That is not the same as being optimally adapted as a chimpanzee is to a rainforest. A chimpanzee is quite comfortable in its natural habitat - Yaghans aren't, surely you know what adaptation means? Surely you know that a thread talking about a natural/optimal habitat isn't asking under what most severe conditions can a human survive with great discomfort/struggle? Surely you have the ability to grasp that much? You wouldn't have brought up the Yaghans and Neanderthals in the first place unless you were talking about natural/optimal habitats for humans right?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 01:31:44 am by panacea »

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #180 on: October 08, 2014, 02:46:55 am »
.... These are obvious deductions, why aren't you getting it Tyler?

Is that what this is about, panacea? You need Tyler to agree with you, or else you are going to repeat yourself and call him names until he comes around to your point of view?

As many of us have seen, you are a top-notch Philadelphia lawyer, but this is not a courtroom and the topic at hand is not a point of law. I fail to see the practicality of your intense need to have someone agree with you.

You've made your point. Others have made theirs. The world is full of dichotomy.
"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

Offline JeuneKoq

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Gender: Male
  • It's french for "Cockerel"
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #181 on: October 08, 2014, 03:21:41 am »
you said close quote that "the best atheletes tend to come from warmer climates" followed by url of summer olympic athletes. i simply pointed out that you using such an arguement, is no different than if i were to say "the best atheletes tend to come from colder climates" followed by url of winter olympic atheletes

its pretty simple: people from warmer climates tend to be better at "summer events", people from colder climates tend to be better at "winter events". why make this into anything more than it has to be? unless of course you are argueing that you could bring a bunch of Jamaicans to Austria and expect them to be as proficient skiers as the latter, or visa versa bring a bunch of Austrians to Jamaica and expect them to be just as proficient sprinters (with "proper training" both ways of course).
(...) you seem to have taken way too much offense to my post than was intended...and sport is not real life anyways
Colorles, it wasn't my intention at all to sound hostile against you. Now that I've reread the stuff I wrote to you, I can understand why you would think I was being cynically aggressive or something. It wasn't that, believe me. That's the risk taken with forum chatting: not being able to actually observe the body language and emotions of the person on the other side of the screen, therefor stuff written sometime happens to get subject to misinterpretation.
Aside from that I feel you still don't get the point I was making about olympic athletes. But since it's kind of out-of-subject, I would rather PM you about it.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 03:30:02 am by JeuneKoq »

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #182 on: October 08, 2014, 04:45:20 am »
@eveheart
your post itself is a contradiction to the point you're trying to make
tylerdurden has replied just as many times as I have to the discussion (with much more repetitive "neanderthal and yaghan" themes which don't relate to the vast majority of humanity) we are debating
furthermore you are off topic, you can PM me with these personal issues you have instead of derail an ontopic debate

(posting this here so that everyone can learn from your mistake, otherwise I'd pm you)

Offline colorles

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Re: Too long posts
« Reply #183 on: October 08, 2014, 07:21:24 am »
Colorles, could you explain your views in shorter wording? If everyone were writing such lengthy blocks of text like you do, we would spend all of our time in reading this thread.

Say a maximum with a minimum number of words… rather then a minimum with a maximum number of word, please. Otherwise, most won’t bother to read and care about what you wrote.

By the way, I stumbled upon this part in your tirades, which couldn’t be more wrong. You confuse science with religion!! (I didn’t take the time to read the rest, sorry.)

my posts are not that long. certainly not "tirades"

science is like religion in many ways. how many times over the centuries has something been "universally accepted as truth", only to be proven wrong later on? a simple example would be the earth formally being presumed to be center of the universe, the earth being flat, etc, really just as simple as that let alone getting into physics and such. it was a simple point i was making, nothing to really get into a considerable discussion over



but back to the discussion at hand, i brought up the malvinas/falkland islands for discussion, as a potential example of "ideal human climate" ie maritime, low fluctuating range of temperatures (not too hot not too cold), with access to both fresh water rivers and the ocean. i mean with everyone argueing the merits of cold climate adaptation vs warm climate adaptation, wouldn't somewhere in the middle all things considered seem more ideal, to everyone?

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 #184 on: October 08, 2014, 02:31:26 pm »
Were the first humans black?
From the various human origins hypotheses can we safely assume humans started out black?
The other colors just came out later on?

I think this is important.

Are we talking about the original black humans?

Or are we talking about the neanderthal + original black humans which are whites and asians?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 02:37:40 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 #185 on: October 08, 2014, 04:27:10 pm »
The original ancestor of both chimpanzees and modern humans is said to have had pale(ie white) skin. Chimps also have pale skin underneath the fur. So, white skin appeared long before any dark skin appeared in some  hominid 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 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 #186 on: October 08, 2014, 04:51:25 pm »
But Tyler, humans have no fur.  So which humans are we talking about?

And we shouldn't be inserting chimps in this discussion.

They are not humans.

And they are not our ancestors.
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 #187 on: October 08, 2014, 06:34:18 pm »
It  is irrelevant as to whether humans have no fur, their ancestors certainly  had white(pale) skin:-

http://www.skinwhiteningscience.com/skin_types_evolution_of_skin_colour.html

There is a claim that hominids in Africa started developing darker skin colour after losing all their fur, but  what about all those apemen/hominids which left Africa  millions of years ago? Obviously, their skin did not darken if they  left  for colder climes.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 04:50:29 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 #188 on: October 08, 2014, 06:46:18 pm »
OK, so I will address pamacea's ramblings:-

1)  The original argument we had ages ago  had you contending that we could never adapt to the cold without needing to develop fur after generations of further breeding. Obviously, I have easily managed to debunk this "notion" as I have shown via the Yaghans, that one can indeed adapt to the cold more without ever needing fur, just requiring a higher metabolic rate and a higher body temperature. 

Then, panacea, you use a lot of equivocation  to get round the fact that I have already won the argument. Incidentally,   most wildlife are not perfectly adapted to their environment either.  Just like the Yaghans use rock formations to sometimes shelter in, so do sea otters raise their paws out of the water in order to keep warm, and so do bears need to hibernate each winter in a warm burrow,  leopard lizards  have to avoid the heat of the  midday sun while living in the desert etc.. If not even most wildlife are  ever 100% adapted to their environment, just like the examples I gave, then one cannot expect humans to be at 100%  perfect adaptation either in order to claim they are fully adapted. In other words, Neanderthals likely  could not arbitrarily survive on the open glaciers  during a month-long blizzard without a shelter, say, but they were still able to adapt to the cold far better than modern humans(simply because of  many generations of genetic adaptation).

Re Neanderthals:- Get your facts straight for once. No, the Neanderthals actually died out during a warm, mild climate:-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202323.html


leading people to suggest that humans were the cause of Neanderthal extinction.

The scientific study you pathetically try to debunk gives a perfectly good explanation for the greater Neanderthal resistance to the cold. Incidentally, it has been scientifically proven that Neanderthals were virtually identical to humans genetically, only differing by 0.12% difference:-


http://www.delhidailynews.com/news/Neanderthals---humans-genomes-only-0-12-percent-different-1398169437/



Then you claim, as usual wrongly, that the Neanderthals had a much shorter average  lifespan than  early palaeo humans: Easily debunked :-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/01/11/3110388.htm

The current notion is that humans simply outbred them while mixing with them. This makes sense. I mean, a cold-adapted hominid like the Neanderthals would likely have had  far fewer children due to the harsh environment they lived in. Plus, if  Neanderthals were more intelligent than modern humans(as seems likely), well it is a known fact in this day and age that the less intelligent generally have more children than the more intelligent.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 07:38:49 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 #189 on: October 08, 2014, 07:50:35 pm »
Or are we talking about the neanderthal + original black humans which are whites and asians?
  This does not make sense. I mean since Neanderthals were white(ie had red hair and white skin), any interbreeding between Neanderthals and any black-skinned  humans would presumably have resulted in  what are called "mulattoes"(ie people who are roughly half white half black). Obviously, Europeans, Orientals and South Asians cannot be described as being half-black, half white by appearance,  by any means.

That is, unless one believes in the multiregional hypothesis whereby hominids  are supposed to have  left Africa c.800,000 to c.2,000,000 years ago and subsequently evolved to become other ethnic groups. Still does not necessarily mean that those groups that left Africa had to have had darker skin.
"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 #190 on: October 08, 2014, 08:44:18 pm »
From the complicated discussion of so many many things we know now and still yet to discover, it is no wonder that Aajonus Vonderplanitz the healer concentrated his efforts on what works TODAY.

We all know more than we did a few years ago, but knowing more only shows we know so little still and have yet to learn many things.

I've enjoyed the debates in this topic which have brought to light many things I didn't know.  Thanks to you guys and gals debating on this.

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 Hanna

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #191 on: October 09, 2014, 03:06:26 am »
Without having read every post:

Quote
the whole arguement of humans being "non-adapted" to cold climates on the notion of "having to wear clothes" can be flipped on you considering the various human populations that need to wear clothes to cover and protect there light skin (which was previously as adaptation to less intense sunlight of course, and hence either a different region or a different climate in the past) from the scorching rays of the sun
In any case, you need much less cloth (or animal hides) to protect yourself even from the tropic sun than you need to protect yourself from arctic cold. Moreover, if there are forests, you are protected from the sun in a perfectly natural way, without having to resort to technology (however defined). A simpel shelter will protect you from the sun, but not sufficiently from the cold. So to me it seems clear to which environment we are better adapted so far, even if we have a fair skin.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2014, 03:21:50 am by Hanna »

Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,769
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #192 on: October 09, 2014, 04:33:10 am »
seems to make complete sense.   And, or, But,  that 's only one small part of the equation.    As the title suggest,,  "optimal".      I live in northern Ca. on the coast.  Rarely does it freeze, and even more rarely does it get over 80F..   I tend to think it doesn't tax or stress my body enough.   Kind of like a retired person moving to florida and living inside their air conditioned apartment, and only walking outside after the sun goes down and it's cooled off, or early morning. 
     check out  on Utube these 80 year olds who swim in frozen waters.   My gut tells me those people are a heck of lot better off from having done so. 
   So yes, without any clothing, and little hair, from that perspective I too would choose a temperate environment.    But tribes for a very long time have had clothing and more hair. Just a fact.   So I think the real question, given the obvious that people's will find something to wrap around their bodies when it's cold,, which environment is most conducive for health?

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #193 on: October 10, 2014, 09:36:15 pm »
Tayler:
Neanderthals are suggested to have had fur. The only evidence to the contrary is the yaghans which used technology to survive their climate from the start (not having natural evolution free of technology), the neanderthals which used technology were not found to always have used it and evolved fur before their technological advances and have been found to share the fur-grasping traits of their hands with chimpanzees. Neanderthals differing by .12% is still a lot different from a modern human when you realize the difference between humans and some other apes alive today is also less than 1%.  I agree that an animal has niche adaptations and isn't immune to all conditions of an environment all of the time, but the naked modern human body has never been found to be adapted to cold even marginally as well as it's adapted to other climates, even the yaghans would fare better elsewhere. The yaghans haven't had hundreds of thousands of years to develop fur, and have made use of what they can over such short time periods, yet still weren't energetically efficient or thriving or "adapted" in their forced environment. Body fat is a good insulator, especially in water as you can see in marine life, but it is an expensive insulator - it costs a lot more energy to maintain body fat (especially brown fat which generates heat) than it does to maintain body fur. This is why the yaghans depended on technology to sustain that high energy demand. And obviously, yaghans don't represent the majority of modern humans and are useless for figuring out what the natural habitat is/was for the rest of us.

I never claimed neanderthals had a shorter lifespan. I never implied it or discussed anything about lifespan of neanderthals.

About the "study" you posted, the abstract is some scientists suggesting, proposing, and guessing at adaptations of neanderthals, there isn't a shred of evidence in the abstract, and you have not read the actual full source and nor can we.

The link you posted about neanderthals dying out in a warm period is outdated information. You need to look at the dates. Carbon dating has become more accurate since then, and it's known neanderthals went extinct ten thousand years before that article estimates. I would hardly trust something talking about a warm period extinction for neanderthals when the extinction of the neanderthals themselves was off by at least 10,000 years in that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction

In summary, modern humans are not well-adapted to cold. Even when better adapted, as yaghans are and pretty much no other peoples, the bodies of those humans are still more suited/fare better in warmer climates, whereas true cold-climate adapted animals don't fare better in warmer climates.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #194 on: October 11, 2014, 05:10:31 pm »
Tayler:
Neanderthals are suggested to have had fur.
This is, as usual, utter nonsense, and I'm surprised that you compare Neanderthals to chimps when such  link-comparisons have  already been fully  discredited  years ago. In fact, Neanderthals, according to current scientific thought, are not thought to have had fur at all, with hominids having lost their fur c. 1.2 million years ago, well before Neanderthals arose:-

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/15/science-seat-you-could-have-been-a-furry-beast/
Quote
I never claimed neanderthals had a shorter lifespan. I never implied it or discussed anything about lifespan of neanderthals.
  You had  previously, quite wrongly, stated:-  "Regardless, neanderthals died out because of a cold period, and they had one of the shortest existences of any large primate in terms of years of survival. Hardly a case story for "successful adaptation"."  In that text, you make it rather clear that you thought that Neanderthals  had shorter lifespans(re "shorter existences").

Your insinuations re the Yaghans are also nonsense. The only "technology" they used was fire and, for obvious reasons, they could not near fire all the time as they had to hunt etc. So, in other words, they had indeed adapted to their cold environment for survival purposes as a result of their increased metabolism etc.,  they simply used fire and other methods in order to feel more comfortable, that's all. In the same way, foxes can survive outside, and do so mostly,  but they prefer warm burrows when, say, bad weather arrives.

There are plenty of other studies showing that Neanderthals were adapted to the cold. This article details some studies showing that the limbs of Neanderthals showed cold adaptation , there is even a study indicating that Neanderthals had a higher longevity than Cro-Magnon-era humans:-

http://www.icr.org/article/neanderthals-are-still-human/

Quote
The link you posted about neanderthals dying out in a warm period is outdated information. You need to look at the dates. Carbon dating has become more accurate since then, and it's known neanderthals went extinct ten thousand years before that article estimates. I would hardly trust something talking about a warm period extinction for neanderthals when the extinction of the neanderthals themselves was off by at least 10,000 years in that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction

The recent claim re those Spanish-based  Neanderthal remains being much older  is considered highly dubious, however, by  scientific researchers, with the new carbon-dating methods considered doubtful methods, at best:-
"But Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum, who was not involved with the latest study, said: "Radiocarbon methodology on bone will not resolve the question of the last Neanderthals.

"What they have done is look at two sites in Iberia where - using my own models - I would never have predicted a late Neanderthal extinction. One is up in the high Meseta of central Spain, at 1,000m or more, with a very harsh climate and the other is in the mountains of Granada - again in a very harsh environment.

"These climates are so cold and dry, that is where the collagen in the bone has preserved and they have been able to get dates... What I think the method is giving us is a skew, a bias, towards older dates by the very nature of the preservation." taken from:-

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21330194

So, it is still likely that Neanderthals died out in a warm climate. Whatever the case, obviously, even if Neanderthals had died out during a period of cold, the very fact that they had already survived for hundreds of thousands of years in cold environments during the Ice Age means that it is extraordinarily unlikely that they died out due to the cold temperatures in the very Late Palaeolithic.
Quote
In summary, modern humans are not well-adapted to cold. Even when better adapted, as yaghans are and pretty much no other peoples, the bodies of those humans are still more suited/fare better in warmer climates, whereas true cold-climate adapted animals don't fare better in warmer climates.
This is a nonsense conclusion. I have already debunked your absurd notion that the Yaghans were not well-adapted, as I had pointed out that the various methods they used (ie fire, huddling in rock formations etc.) could not possibly have been used all the time since they had to hunt and forage etc., meaning that such methods were not needed for actual survival per se, but just for added comfort. The only thing you got nearly right was the last part "whereas true cold-climate adapted animals don't fare better in warmer climates". So, in the case of the Yaghans, for example, their higher metabolic rate and higher body temperatures would have meant they would have become increasingly uncomfortable as they entered into hotter and hotter climates.

I can actually  be an example of the above. I used to have appalling health problems, and one side-effect in those past days was that I could not stand temperatures above 10 degrees Celsius without sweating heavily, and would happily go around in a very flimsy T-shirt in cold, snow-covered terrain(full blown nudity being somewhat frowned on by the law!). Even once my health problems got sorted out, I still, though to a  lesser extent,  stayed more adapted to colder than hotter environments. I checked my glands and the doctors all state they function fine, so I suspect I am  simply more of an evolutionary throwback to my Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal ancestors, in this one regard.

Whatever the case, fur is not needed as an adaptation if one has a higher metabolism, higher body temperature, shorter limbs adapted to the cold etc. etc. Another clincher is the fact that chimps and many other animals dwelling in hot climates  have fur; yet, by your strange logic, they should have lost it all by now.
"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 #195 on: October 12, 2014, 12:44:48 am »
Tyler your post is full of logical fallacies again,
Neanderthals most likely had fur, it's not nonsense. I didn't compare Neanderthals to chimps, you compared Humans to Neanderthals, I reminded you that slight DNA differences mean dramatic physiological changes (less than 1% goes from human to chimp).

I never said or implied Neanderthals had short or long lifespans, I was talking about their survival (extinction). They went extinct relatively rapidly, from when they came into existence. They didn't last long as a species when compared to other species alive today that have been around much longer than they ever were.

When I stated Neanderthals went extinct because of cold periods, I was using the latest scientific knowledge to support it, it isn't wrong. Your less-likely opinion is based on outdated information, there's no other way to look at it.

The Yaghans didn't just use fire, they used boats and animal grease also, they also were reported by early Europeans to have used "many fires." You keep insinuating they didn't as if you knew, when the only people who know are the people who actually saw and wrote about it, you're not one of those people. The records indicate "many fires", don't downplay something because it goes against what you want to believe.

It isn't likely that Neanderthals died out in a warm climate, as the most recent scientific data suggests. While no data is perfect from "what ifs", we can only go on the data we have. Everything else is absolutely meaningless speculation. If you don't agree, then don't use Neanderthals which we don't have enough data about yet in your opinion to support your flakey claims.

Fur is simply the most energy efficient method to maintain body heat on land for mammals of any significant size, which is why most land-based animals have fur no matter the climate. Subcutaneous body fat, being more expensive even though a great insulator particularly in water, is typically hoarded by aquatic or semiaquatic animal life, since they tend to have more food available to them. You can see this in many land animals that wade in water like the hippo.

In conclusion, your seemingly infinite incorrect assumptions about what I'm saying as well as your logical flaws appear to make it impossible for you to realize the common sense right under your nose. Modern humans natural/optimal habitat is not arctic or subarctic climates or anything close to it, even if we can somewhat adapt to live in those climates (with some technology) in less than 10,000 years like the Yaghans did, our population would dwindle from billions to thousands since there isn't that many cold climate areas with as much easy to find food as the Yaghans had, and their survival depended on their unique circumstances, isolated to a tiny area still with the help of boats, animal grease, fire, and language technology (practical knowledge).

There is no reason for our body to evolve subcutaneous body fat instead of fur to conserve body heat, unless we were partly aquatic. There is no land animal that has subcutaneous body fat that doesn't or didn't have a recent habitat in water or partly in water.
There is no reason for our body to evolve conscious control of our breathing (and therefore ability to speak) unless we were partly aquatic. While there are advantages to this, one person doesn't just evolve conscious breath control on land and have a great advantage (still not speaking) and then carry this genetic change over to the rest of the species. Conscious breath control doesn't directly evolve for purposes of communication, it evolves for water-survival.
Higher metabolisms and higher brown body fat equates to much higher energy needs. Much higher energy needs equates to depending on much higher food supply in any given area. Colder climates, unless accompanied by water-sources, are the world over much less rich in food supplies than warmer climates. It doesn't make any evolutionary sense to evolve higher nutritional demands, while relocating to a less abundant food supply area, unless, like the Yaghans, you are forced out of your natural habitat by enemies or some other force and forced to adapt over thousands of years (which still hasn't been shown that humans even back then could survive without technological aid, despite Tyler's fantasies about it), like modern humans today haven't been and therefore aren't adapted to such climates.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 12:56:34 am by panacea »

Offline Brad462

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #196 on: October 12, 2014, 01:19:02 am »
Albinos--The Origin of the Caucasian Race?

http://stewartsynopsis.com/chapter_7.htm

The falsity of White history begins and ends with their desire to hide their true nature; that being that they are derived from Albinos.
[/quote] My god...I can't believe someone as intelligent as you would believe such a retarded theory.  This theory has its origins in racism and xenophobia.  Do some research on black albinos in Africa and you will see that these poor people are treated like witches - unfortunately the human race hasn't evolved very much.
I'm actually a really nice guy, once you get to blow me.

— Anthony Jeselnik

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,016
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #197 on: October 12, 2014, 03:29:40 am »
Tyler your post is full of logical fallacies again,
Neanderthals most likely had fur, it's not nonsense. I didn't compare Neanderthals to chimps, you compared Humans to Neanderthals, I reminded you that slight DNA differences mean dramatic physiological changes (less than 1% goes from human to chimp).
I have already shown that current scientific thought is that Neanderthals did NOT have fur, and that loss of fur  is estimated to have occurred c. 1.2 million years ago - all explained in the link I showed previously. As before, you got things wrong re your  claim that chimps and humans have less than 1% genetic difference. In fact,  the genetic differences between chimps and humans are much larger:-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/what-about-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/

Quote
I never said or implied Neanderthals had short or long lifespans, I was talking about their survival (extinction). They went extinct relatively rapidly, from when they came into existence. They didn't last long as a species when compared to other species alive today that have been around much longer than they ever were.
Well, you certainly were unclear re this. Of course, the claim re Neanderthals  not lasting that long compared to other species, that is a particularly foolish  and meaningless remark. After all, Neanderthal DNA still exists in modern humans to some extent(up to 20% of the Neanderthal genome so far has been detected in modern non-African humans as a whole). Also,  as should be obvious, species can arbitrarily die out for all sorts of reasons such as plagues while still being perfectly capable of surviving in their environment. Besides, most anthropologists now think that so-called Neanderthal extinction did NOT happen due to any climate-change but that it was solely due to Neanderthals interbreeding with early humans - since the latter population was much larger they simply outbred the Neanderthals.
Quote
When I stated Neanderthals went extinct because of cold periods, I was using the latest scientific knowledge to support it, it isn't wrong. Your less-likely opinion is based on outdated information, there's no other way to look at it.
No, obviously you did not bother to read the info I provided, as the info was clearly based on current information. Indeed, the so-called "latest scientific knowledge" you had cited was shown to be seriously flawed in its mistaken assumptions and badly-chosen "evidence".
Quote
The Yaghans didn't just use fire, they used boats and animal grease also, they also were reported by early Europeans to have used "many fires." You keep insinuating they didn't as if you knew, when the only people who know are the people who actually saw and wrote about it, you're not one of those people. The records indicate "many fires", don't downplay something because it goes against what you want to believe.
I did not dispute that they used many fires, I merely pointed out that they did not have access to rock-formations or grease or fire all the time when hunting or foraging or whatever, which means that they were sufficiently cold-adapted re survival to cope without them. Sure, they would have used fires etc, for additional comfort but that's all. At any rate, the Yaghans and the Neanderthals, the Inuit, some animals  etc. are sufficient as examples to prove that there are plenty of other ways to adapt to the cold, such as shorter limbs, increased body temperature, higher metabolism etc., hibernation(re certain frogs) without ever needing to grow fur.
Quote
Fur is simply the most energy efficient method to maintain body heat on land for mammals of any significant size, which is why most land-based animals have fur no matter the climate. Subcutaneous body fat, being more expensive even though a great insulator particularly in water, is typically hoarded by aquatic or semiaquatic animal life, since they tend to have more food available to them. You can see this in many land animals that wade in water like the hippo.
The aquatic ape theory is largely discredited, incidentally:-

http://www.aquaticape.org

If having fur was so useful  then why did humans lose it?

The rest of Panacea's  comments  I can disregard since the aquatic ape theory has been so extensively debunked by many scientists and there are plenty of online sites with evidence debunking it. I would just like to add that the fauna of the Ice Age was likely far greater in terms of biomass, even in cold climates, compared to modern times.  I mean, mammoths were hunted in Siberia, clearly providing a lot of meat/energy  for primitive humanoids.

Also, there is some obvious misunderstanding here.  I see humans/hominids as being highly versatile re adapting to extreme conditions, but with some types being better suited to one type of climate, and other types being better suited to another climate  due to ethnicity or some other factor etc. It is you who seems to think that there was one natural climate(warm aquatic environment?) for all humans.
"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 #198 on: October 12, 2014, 04:27:15 am »
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.

Neanderthals did have fur according to current scientific thought, your article is one among a sea of them. Again, we have two different viewpoints both backed by science, so it's useless to use these unreachable Neanderthals to support either side of the argument. All we can really use is logic. Not posting links to "consequently discredited theories" as they aren't discredited, that's just what your logical filter interpreted. I can't fix that problem you have, of not having good logical filters to interpret information. 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.

Furthermore, I was not unclear about Neanderthals extinction vs. lifespan, your ignorant assumption did all of the muddying of the water for you.

I could cite book after book for you to read and it will get nowhere, your defense is looking up articles to support your view on google knowing no one has the time to read all your useless information. This is a common stance used by religious zealouts for example, quoting "just read the bible/quran/etc and you'll understand my point of view".

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.

Your logical fallacy in your question "if having fur was so useful why did humans lose it?" is a simple one - you are assuming that we traded fur for fat (or fur for nothing) in order to adapt to a cold environment, when this is backwards, and makes no sense obviously, and is supported by the majority of land animal life out there, you don't even need an article to know that. The logic is sound that fur is cheaper energy-wise (and therefore food-wise) than fat to keep warm. There is no reason to use fat instead, unless you are partly aquatic, since fur isn't a good insulator for vital organs in water.

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.

Offline panacea

  • Deer Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« Reply #199 on: October 12, 2014, 10:55:19 am »
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."
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 11:11:48 am by panacea »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk