UAH Global Temperature Update for August, 2019: +0.38 deg. C

John Tillman, …… fossils are, in actuality, nothing more than “accidents” that happened.

The only thing that a recovered fossil proves is that – a specific individual of a specific species of animal, regardless of whether it was alive or dead at the time, was “accidently” entombed in the underlying substrate that preserved one or more of its body parts, in either the original or mineralized form ….. and that said fossil is scientific proof that said animal existed at the “time & place” that said entombed substrate is dated. In other words, ….. fossil dating is just fine, wonderful and CORRECT, as long as an older fossil is not found.

Remember Otzi the Iceman ….. and the re-dating of the Bronze Age?

Remember, Tillman, during the decades prior to 1920, there were LITERALY billions of Passenger Pigeons that regularly migrated up and down the Eastern portion of North America, …. and thus I challenge you to locate or discover a fossil that can be accurately identified as being a Passenger Pigeon. Iffen they had gone extinct during the 1st Century AD, would we even know that they ever existed?

John Tillman – September 9, 2019 at 3:31 pm

“The fact remains that we evolved in an environment transitioning from forest to grassland, ”

OH GOOD GRIEF, …….. nothing makes sense in the evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens other than a close association with an aquatic environment, to wit:

The evolution of bipedal locomotion, loss of protective body hair and the growth/formation of “sweat glands” over their entire epidermal skin area are just three (3) of the physical attributes that our early human ancestors (the only living sub-species in the Family of Great Apes) acquired during the past two (2) million years, ….. for them to best survive in the environment that they chose to live and reproduce in.

So, the question is, what was their selected environment like that best suited a bipedal stance or movement, ….. did not require the protection of a heavy coating of body hair, ,,,,, but absolutely, positively required that their entire body surface (epidermis) contain sweat glands that secrete copious amounts of salt (NaCl) containing water (H2O).

Surely that environment was not a hot, semi-arid African savannah, …. simply because salt (NaCl) and water (H2O) are the two (2) most important, precious resources necessary for pre-human or human survival, ….. and thus it would be highly detrimental to one’s survival if they indiscriminately rid their body of said without an immediate means of replacing said losses. Too little, or too much water (H2O) or salt (NaCl) is a cause of certain death to humans.

As far as anyone knows, ….. the evolving of “sweat glands” in the epidermis covering of the human body may have specifically evolved for ridding the body of excess salt (that was/is ingested as a result of their primary food source) …… because the retention of too much salt will kill you “deader than a door nail”, There has been more than one (1) human that has died from drinking “salty” water. And a “heat stroke” is the result of “sweating out” too much of the body’s salt content.

If one is only focusing on or only considering “human furlessness”, …. then I agree, one will not readily see anything particularly aquatic about it. And the same goes for human bipedalism, you won’t see anything particularly aquatic about it either. But you can’t be “focusing on” human furlessness or bipedalism if you are going to apply a kind of “reverse evolution” to determine the environmental “driver” of said attributes. Thus said, one has to focus on the “environmental driver(s)” responsible for the evolved attributes, …… and not the attributes themselves.

Thus, it is of my learned opinion that human “furlessness” is a direct result of human “bipedalism”. In other words, human bipedalism was the “environmental driver” responsible for human furlessness.

And I say that because, if our early human ancestors had never evolved the ability of bipedal walking over the course of 300K or a million years, ….. then there would not have been any logical reason (environmental driver) for their body to evolve furlessness. Human bipedalism and furlessness go “hand-in-hand”, no need of one without the other.

And, the next obvious question that I am sure you will want me to provide an answer to/for is: “And just what is the “environmental driver” responsible for human bipedalism?”

And the simple answer to the aforesaid question is, ….. our early human ancestors, which eventually evolved to be a sub-species of the Family of Great Apes, established a close association with an aquatic environment by taking up residence on or near the shoreline of a river, lake, tidal zone, estuary or inland sea simply because said body of water (H2O) provided them an easily accessible, abundant supply of high-protein foods that did not require the expenditure of great amounts of time and energy, …… or the use of tools, …. for harvesting said food or for eating of said foods. Life is good …… for any animal species that doesn’t have to spend all their waking hours searching for food and evading predators.

And bipedal walking evolved as a result of ….. harvesting their food from the shallow waters. It is quite easy to learn to walk bipedally by walking (wading) in water because the water provides buoyancy to easily hold oneself in an upright position. And thus, our early ancestors that were the best bipedal waders/walkers in the water ……. were also the bestest provider of aquatic foods ….. and the bestest food provider got to do the mostest procreating with the females.

Loss of body hair/fur by early humans resulted in the loss of a protective covering of the epidermis, which meant that it would have been highly improbable for early humans to walk or run amongst or through the brush, weeds, thorns, briars, etc., of the hot/dry African savannahs while looking for tubers or fruits, …… or either trying to catch a prey animal or trying to evade a predator animal ……. without their “bare” skin being cut, scraped, gouged and/or lacerated …. which would have surely resulted in their demise. Loss of body hair/fur also meant a loss of protection from blood-sucking and biting insects that commonly inhabit brushy fields, grasslands, savannahs and hot/humid locales.

Loss of the majority of body hair/fur by early humans meant that they could more easily walk or wade bipedally in the water when harvesting aquatic foods. Heavy or thick body hair/fur would cause a severe “drag” on quick movements required to capture aquatic prey animals, especially in deep water.

Humans retained their body hair under their arms and between the legs in their groin area simply because said patches of hair serves the purpose of a “dry lubricant”.

And humans retained their body hair on their head most likely because of their bipedal stance. It protected their head and brain from the solar irradiance …… as well as providing a “glare reducing” aid or shield when bipedally walking in the water harvesting their food.

“YUP”, the harvesting of their aquatic grown foods whose remains provided them with a variety of “natural tools” (bivalve shells, spines, claws, fish bones, etc.) that didn’t need any “inventing” by those early humans, …… who just had to figure out how best to use them for other purposes. And they had plenty of “free time” to do their “figuring” ….. because they were not spending all their awake hours searching for food and evading predators.

It is utterly asinine and idiotic for anyone to claim that our early pre-human ancestors expended 200/300+ thousands of years on the African savannahs, at first evolving to walk bipedally, then to run bipedally, in order to chase down, kill and butcher Savannah living animals in order to acquire a sufficient source of high-protein foods, …… that they required for evolving a large brain and greater intelligence, ……. that was prerequisite to them being capable of “inventing” the tools ….. that was absolutely, positively necessary for the killing and/or butchering of the aforesaid animal protein.

Cheers, …… S C Cogar

John Tillman – September 10, 2019 at 11:11 am

“They didn’t live in the water, which was teeming with crocodylians.”

Correct, …. they didn’t live in the water ……. and they didn’t live on icebergs that were floating in the water, either. So quit posting asinine comments to distract from your misnurtured, miseducated beliefs concerning the environmental factors that determines “descent with modification” during the evolution of the various species.

When you are “at-a-loss-for-words”, ….do you also mimic the all-time favorite by claiming that …. “humans didn’t evolve from monkeys”?

And “NO”, it was foolish for you to claim all streams, rivers, lakes, inland seas and all coastal areas were “teeming with crocodylians”. “DUH”, how many crocodylians fossils have they found in The Great Rift Valley, in the vicinity of where Lucy was found near the shore of an inland sea?

John Tillman – September 10, 2019 at 12:01 pm

“Acquiring salt was not a problem for hominins evolving in the Rift Valley, the lakes of which are now and were then salt”

Exactly right, John, …. and our early hominin ancestors evolved their H. sapiens attributes during their residency on those lake shores by harvesting the unlimited food supply found in the salty waters and ingesting too much salt in the process, which had to be gotten rid of. Aka: salty sweat from the epidermis.