Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Sin boldly. -- Martin Luther


interests / sci.anthropology.paleo / marine chimp??

SubjectAuthor
* marine chimp??littor...@gmail.com
`* Re: marine chimp??Mario Petrinovic
 +* Re: marine chimp??littor...@gmail.com
 |`* Re: marine chimp??Mario Petrinovic
 | `* Re: marine chimp??littor...@gmail.com
 |  `- Re: marine chimp??Mario Petrinovic
 `- Re: marine chimp??DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves

1
marine chimp??

<f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13372&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13372

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1012:b0:2e1:e7f3:5c89 with SMTP id d18-20020a05622a101200b002e1e7f35c89mr2324003qte.550.1649952738201;
Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4c9a:0:b0:2ed:f0a:77c4 with SMTP id
j26-20020ac84c9a000000b002ed0f0a77c4mr2358127qtv.376.1649952737980; Thu, 14
Apr 2022 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:e18a:fbe:396a:c158;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:e18a:fbe:396a:c158
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>
Subject: marine chimp??
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 16:12:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 16:12 UTC

A transcript of my WhatTalks presentation has been written from the U Tube recording. Michel Odent

SELLING THE MARINE CHIMPANZEE CONCEPT

Thank you, Algis, for this comment about power points. People my age (I am 92) don’t like power points. They need to look at the faces of people, to establish eye to eye contact without being distracted by pictures. This is how I’ll talk with you today.

As Algis said, our point of departure is the term “aquatic ape theory”. We’ll first wonder how marketable and mediatic this term can be. This is not a new question. About 30 years ago, at a seminar at San Rafael, in California, the clever editor of “Mind/Body bulletin”, as if surprised, asked Elaine Morgan why she had published a book titled “The Aquatic Ape” after publishing “The Descent of Woman”. Elaine immediately, without thinking, replied: “Scientists did not like The Descent of Woman because it was a best seller. This is why the following book was titled “The Aquatic Ape”. This was a funny way to say: “I assume that this title will not be immediately attractive”. It was a clever answer, 30 years ago. Since that time, we can observe that the media never use the term “aquatic ape”, even when they publish biographies of Elaine. Recently, when a statue of Elaine was unveiled, her biography appeared in many journals, such as The Guardian. The term “aquatic ape” never appeared. Journalists don’t forget, on the other hand, to mention that when Elaine appeared for the first time at Oxford University people thought she was a cleaning lady.

There are therefore good reasons to wonder if the term “Aquatic ape” is marketable. Can it become better known and popular? Should we replace it?

Personally, I always try to avoid this term. Algis mentioned the title of one of my books: The birth of Homo, the marine chimpanzee. I suggest that we contrast “Aquatic Ape Theory” and “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”. To suggest a solution to this issue, I suggest that we follow the advice given by Stephen Munro in the framework of Whats Talk. He started by saying: don’t lose time by listening to experts. He was probably suggesting that we never know about the ulterior motives of experts… and he gave a list of people we should communicate with when we need to find a solution to a difficult issue. Children were at the top of the list.

I followed the advice of Stephen Munro and initiated a conversation with my friend Lughan, a clever 12-year-old boy. I started with a question: for your birthday, I am planning to give you a book as a present. You must choose between two titles: one title would be “we are aquatic apes” and the other one “we are marine chimpanzees”. Within two seconds Lughan had enthusiastically replied: we are chimpanzees! I am fascinated by the work of Jane Goodall! Of course, we belong to the family of chimpanzees! etc. I immediately understood his point of view. There are similarities between the way of thinking of children and nonagenarians.

After a series of conversations with my friend Lughan, I gradually found rational ways to support his point of view. Taking into account what I understood as a medical practitioner, I found reasons to clarify what we are currently learning about human nature. There are reasons to contrast the term “aquatic” with the term “marine”, the term “ape” with the term “chimpanzee” and the term “theory” with the term “concept” .

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Let us start with marine versus aquatic. I’ll reply as a doctor known for his practice of obstetrics. We’ll start with the mysterious issue of vernix caseosa. Until the 21st century, in the medical literature, there was no interest in vernix caseosa. In textbooks, it was just mentioned that when babies are born at term, their skin is covered with a kind of cream “like cheese” (caseosa). It was also mentioned that only human babies were born with their skin covered by this cream. When I was a medical student called “externe” in the obstetrical department of a Paris hospital’ (in 1953) the vernix was usually wiped away. It was denied any function’.

As many of you know, the turning point took place during the 21st century, in 2005. It was not induced by the result of a study published in an academic journal. It was a programme presented by David Attenborough on BBC radio 4. The title of the programme was “The scars of evolution”.. This how we learned that, according to Don Bowen, a marine biologist from Nova Scotia, seals are also born with their skin covered with vernix.

We must underline that before that time there had been missed opportunities to wonder if there are sea mammals born with their skin covered with vernix.

In 1979 and 1981, in West Australia, there have been studies evaluating the amounts of squalene in the amniotic fluid as a way to detect post mature foetuses. Let us recall that squalene is an oily substance abundant among marine living creatures (the root of word squalene is squalus, which means shark in latin). However, nobody thought, at that time, to compare human newborn babies and the new born babies of sea mammals. There was another missed opportunity in 2000. A team of American dermatologists wanted to develop a protective cream for premature babies. They tried to imitate vernix caseosa. They were interested in “corneocytes” that work like sponges and are protective in case of immersion in hypertonic water. However, they did not consider the case of sea mammals. In 2008 there was a study of the content of vernix caseosa focusing on branched chain fatty acids. They are special saturated fatty acids with a methyl radical (CH3) attached to one or several carbon atoms of the molecule. Because the authors of this study had not heard about the non-published observations about seals, they could not think of comparing with the vernix caseosa of sea mammals.

Finally, there was a last turning point in 2018. A team in California studied the particular case of sea lions. The authors were not aware of the observations by Don Bowen about seals. Foetuses of sea lions also have their skin covered with human-like vernix. At the end of pregnancy, particles of vernix are detached from the skin and they enrich the amniotic fluid. This is how foetuses of sea lions and humans swallow molecules of branched chain fatty acids that will play an important role in the way the gut flora is established. It would be important to study in depth the similarities between humans and sea mammals in terms of development of the gut flora.

There are many other reasons to contrast the terms aquatic and marine. One of them is the need in iodine. Most human beings - if they don’t have easy access to the sea food chain, - cannot consume a sufficient amount of iodine. It is the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, at such a point that many governments have established regulations so that table salt is enriched with iodine. It is a serious issue among pregnant and lactating women, when the need in iodine is multiplied by about 1.5.

We know why it is serious. Homo is characterised by a huge brain. The development and the functions of the brain are highly dependent on thyroid hormones. Iodine is necessary for their synthesis. The American Thyroid Association (ATA) claims that pregnant women should take a daily iodine supplement of 150 μg. According to a British study, when pregnant women take such a supplement, the average IQ of their children is multiplied by 1.22. So, when we consider the most common nutritional deficiency among modern humans, we feel obliged to prefer the term “marine” to the term “aquatic”.

The brain is a fatty organ. This implies that it has specific needs in term of lipids. It has, in particular, specific needs in DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). DHA is a molecule of omega 3 fatty acid as long and as desaturated as possible (22 carbons and 6 double bonds). The point is that the human enzymatic system is not very effective to synthesize DHA, which is preformed and abundant in the sea food chain only. If human beings don’t have access to sea food their enzymatic system (desaturase and elongase) must transform the parent molecule of the omega 3 family (only 28 carbons and 3 double bonds) which is provided by the land food chain. The point is that this enzymatic system is not very effective among humans. This is one of the most mysterious aspects of human nature: the highly developed brain needs the fatty acid DHA, but the human enzymatic system is not very effective at synthetising this molecule, which is preformed in the sea food chain. Enzymes need the help catalysts, mostly minerals provided by the land food chain. The point is that this metabolic pathway is fragile. It can be weakened by emotional states associated with the release of corticosteroids, such as being sad or depressed, and by potential inhibitory factors such as the consumption of pure sugar, alcohol, trans fatty acids, and man-made food in general. Ideally, we probably need to consume fatty acids provided by the sea food chain.

A reference to our enzymatic system is providing another reason to develop the concept of “marine”. There are very aquatic mammals that do not have access to a marine environment. This is the case, for example, of water voles, otters, rhinoceros, elephants and hippopotamus. We don’t have many common points with them. When we claim that we are special compared with the other mammals, we find reasons to emphasize our common points with sea mammals rather than aquatic mammals in general. We have reasons to replace “aquatic” by “marine”.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

“Ape” is the second term we have to discuss. Do we have reasons to replace the term “ape” by the term “chimpanzee”? Once more, I required the point of view of my friend Lughan. I asked him: “Do you prefer to say that we are apes or that we are chimpanzees?”. He immediately replied: “Oh, chimpanzees! We look like chimpanzees! We are friends with chimpanzees! Apes … I don’t know exactly what it means!” As a matter of fact, it is difficult to translate “ape”. In the age of globalisation, we must realise that “ape” cannot be translated into many languages. It cannot be translated into French, my mother tongue. We can translate “primate”, “monkey”, “chimpanzee”, but not “ape”. This might be the first reason to prefer “chimpanzee”.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: marine chimp??

<t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13373&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13373

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr (Mario Petrinovic)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: marine chimp??
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:26:37 +0200
Organization: Iskon Internet d.d.
Lines: 278
Message-ID: <t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
References: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93-136-69-1.adsl.net.t-com.hr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1649957197 24494 93.136.69.1 (14 Apr 2022 17:26:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:26:37 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>
 by: Mario Petrinovic - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:26 UTC

On 14.4.2022. 18:12, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> A transcript of my WhatTalks presentation has been written from the U Tube recording. Michel Odent
>
>
> SELLING THE MARINE CHIMPANZEE CONCEPT
>
> Thank you, Algis, for this comment about power points. People my age (I am 92) don’t like power points. They need to look at the faces of people, to establish eye to eye contact without being distracted by pictures. This is how I’ll talk with you today.
>
> As Algis said, our point of departure is the term “aquatic ape theory”. We’ll first wonder how marketable and mediatic this term can be. This is not a new question. About 30 years ago, at a seminar at San Rafael, in California, the clever editor of “Mind/Body bulletin”, as if surprised, asked Elaine Morgan why she had published a book titled “The Aquatic Ape” after publishing “The Descent of Woman”. Elaine immediately, without thinking, replied: “Scientists did not like The Descent of Woman because it was a best seller. This is why the following book was titled “The Aquatic Ape”. This was a funny way to say: “I assume that this title will not be immediately attractive”. It was a clever answer, 30 years ago. Since that time, we can observe that the media never use the term “aquatic ape”, even when they publish biographies of Elaine. Recently, when a statue of Elaine was unveiled, her biography appeared in many journals, such as The Guardian. The term “aquatic ape” never appeared. Journalists don’t forget, on the other hand, to mention that when Elaine appeared for the first time at Oxford University people thought she was a cleaning lady.
>
> There are therefore good reasons to wonder if the term “Aquatic ape” is marketable. Can it become better known and popular? Should we replace it?
>
> Personally, I always try to avoid this term. Algis mentioned the title of one of my books: The birth of Homo, the marine chimpanzee. I suggest that we contrast “Aquatic Ape Theory” and “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”. To suggest a solution to this issue, I suggest that we follow the advice given by Stephen Munro in the framework of Whats Talk. He started by saying: don’t lose time by listening to experts. He was probably suggesting that we never know about the ulterior motives of experts… and he gave a list of people we should communicate with when we need to find a solution to a difficult issue. Children were at the top of the list.
>
> I followed the advice of Stephen Munro and initiated a conversation with my friend Lughan, a clever 12-year-old boy. I started with a question: for your birthday, I am planning to give you a book as a present. You must choose between two titles: one title would be “we are aquatic apes” and the other one “we are marine chimpanzees”. Within two seconds Lughan had enthusiastically replied: we are chimpanzees! I am fascinated by the work of Jane Goodall! Of course, we belong to the family of chimpanzees! etc. I immediately understood his point of view. There are similarities between the way of thinking of children and nonagenarians.
>
> After a series of conversations with my friend Lughan, I gradually found rational ways to support his point of view. Taking into account what I understood as a medical practitioner, I found reasons to clarify what we are currently learning about human nature. There are reasons to contrast the term “aquatic” with the term “marine”, the term “ape” with the term “chimpanzee” and the term “theory” with the term “concept” .
>
> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Let us start with marine versus aquatic. I’ll reply as a doctor known for his practice of obstetrics. We’ll start with the mysterious issue of vernix caseosa. Until the 21st century, in the medical literature, there was no interest in vernix caseosa. In textbooks, it was just mentioned that when babies are born at term, their skin is covered with a kind of cream “like cheese” (caseosa). It was also mentioned that only human babies were born with their skin covered by this cream. When I was a medical student called “externe” in the obstetrical department of a Paris hospital’ (in 1953) the vernix was usually wiped away. It was denied any function’.
>
> As many of you know, the turning point took place during the 21st century, in 2005. It was not induced by the result of a study published in an academic journal. It was a programme presented by David Attenborough on BBC radio 4. The title of the programme was “The scars of evolution”. This how we learned that, according to Don Bowen, a marine biologist from Nova Scotia, seals are also born with their skin covered with vernix.
>
> We must underline that before that time there had been missed opportunities to wonder if there are sea mammals born with their skin covered with vernix.
>
> In 1979 and 1981, in West Australia, there have been studies evaluating the amounts of squalene in the amniotic fluid as a way to detect post mature foetuses. Let us recall that squalene is an oily substance abundant among marine living creatures (the root of word squalene is squalus, which means shark in latin). However, nobody thought, at that time, to compare human newborn babies and the new born babies of sea mammals. There was another missed opportunity in 2000. A team of American dermatologists wanted to develop a protective cream for premature babies. They tried to imitate vernix caseosa. They were interested in “corneocytes” that work like sponges and are protective in case of immersion in hypertonic water. However, they did not consider the case of sea mammals. In 2008 there was a study of the content of vernix caseosa focusing on branched chain fatty acids. They are special saturated fatty acids with a methyl radical (CH3) attached to one or several carbon atoms of the molecule. Because the authors of this study had not heard about the non-published observations about seals, they could not think of comparing with the vernix caseosa of sea mammals.
>
> Finally, there was a last turning point in 2018. A team in California studied the particular case of sea lions. The authors were not aware of the observations by Don Bowen about seals. Foetuses of sea lions also have their skin covered with human-like vernix. At the end of pregnancy, particles of vernix are detached from the skin and they enrich the amniotic fluid. This is how foetuses of sea lions and humans swallow molecules of branched chain fatty acids that will play an important role in the way the gut flora is established. It would be important to study in depth the similarities between humans and sea mammals in terms of development of the gut flora.
>
> There are many other reasons to contrast the terms aquatic and marine. One of them is the need in iodine. Most human beings - if they don’t have easy access to the sea food chain, - cannot consume a sufficient amount of iodine. It is the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, at such a point that many governments have established regulations so that table salt is enriched with iodine. It is a serious issue among pregnant and lactating women, when the need in iodine is multiplied by about 1.5.
>
> We know why it is serious. Homo is characterised by a huge brain. The development and the functions of the brain are highly dependent on thyroid hormones. Iodine is necessary for their synthesis. The American Thyroid Association (ATA) claims that pregnant women should take a daily iodine supplement of 150 μg. According to a British study, when pregnant women take such a supplement, the average IQ of their children is multiplied by 1.22. So, when we consider the most common nutritional deficiency among modern humans, we feel obliged to prefer the term “marine” to the term “aquatic”.
>
> The brain is a fatty organ. This implies that it has specific needs in term of lipids. It has, in particular, specific needs in DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). DHA is a molecule of omega 3 fatty acid as long and as desaturated as possible (22 carbons and 6 double bonds). The point is that the human enzymatic system is not very effective to synthesize DHA, which is preformed and abundant in the sea food chain only. If human beings don’t have access to sea food their enzymatic system (desaturase and elongase) must transform the parent molecule of the omega 3 family (only 28 carbons and 3 double bonds) which is provided by the land food chain. The point is that this enzymatic system is not very effective among humans. This is one of the most mysterious aspects of human nature: the highly developed brain needs the fatty acid DHA, but the human enzymatic system is not very effective at synthetising this molecule, which is preformed in the sea food chain. Enzymes need the help catalysts, mostly minerals provided by the land food chain. The point is that this metabolic pathway is fragile. It can be weakened by emotional states associated with the release of corticosteroids, such as being sad or depressed, and by potential inhibitory factors such as the consumption of pure sugar, alcohol, trans fatty acids, and man-made food in general. Ideally, we probably need to consume fatty acids provided by the sea food chain.
>
> A reference to our enzymatic system is providing another reason to develop the concept of “marine”. There are very aquatic mammals that do not have access to a marine environment. This is the case, for example, of water voles, otters, rhinoceros, elephants and hippopotamus. We don’t have many common points with them. When we claim that we are special compared with the other mammals, we find reasons to emphasize our common points with sea mammals rather than aquatic mammals in general. We have reasons to replace “aquatic” by “marine”.
>
> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> “Ape” is the second term we have to discuss. Do we have reasons to replace the term “ape” by the term “chimpanzee”? Once more, I required the point of view of my friend Lughan. I asked him: “Do you prefer to say that we are apes or that we are chimpanzees?”. He immediately replied: “Oh, chimpanzees! We look like chimpanzees! We are friends with chimpanzees! Apes … I don’t know exactly what it means!” As a matter of fact, it is difficult to translate “ape”. In the age of globalisation, we must realise that “ape” cannot be translated into many languages. It cannot be translated into French, my mother tongue. We can translate “primate”, “monkey”, “chimpanzee”, but not “ape”. This might be the first reason to prefer “chimpanzee”.
>
> Another reason is to consider the chimpanzee-homo split. We are cousins. We probably separated at a precise time. This is accepted by many scientists today. I don’t want to discuss this issue. I just explained to Lughan that according to some experts we separated 4 million years ago, or 5 according to others, or 6, etc. He was not interested in that at all. He wanted to know where the split took place. I could only say that it probably happened where the populations of chimpanzees were abundant. The chimpanzees where living mostly in West Africa, around the Equator, in places that are now called Gabon, Cameroun Equatorial Guinea, and so on. So, we were wondering if there are places where both fossils of chimpanzees and human beings have been found. The answer was “no” because one cannot find fossils unless the geological and climatic conditions are perfect. In the place where the split probably took place, there are heavy equatorial rains and inadequate geological conditions, so that it is impossible to find relevant fossils. One effect of the split probably was that our ancestors had acquired the capacity to develop a huge brain. To satisfy the nutritional needs of such a potentially big brain, they probably started to adapt to coastal areas, The point is that there have been such spectacular fluctuations of sea levels during the last millions of years that we’ll probably never find fossils of human beings originally adapted to the coast. Finally, Lughan and I had to confess that we have a lot to learn.
>
> From our conversations we had realised that we must focus on what we don’t know. How can we know more? There are emerging disciplines that can help us in the future. This is the case of virology. There are mysterious questions about the colonisation of our genes by viruses. For example, we may wonder why a virus called CERV2 has colonised the genes of chimpanzees, but not the genes of humans. It means that the contamination took place after the split. It also means that after the split Homo probably evolved in isolated places. We cannot say more.
>
> Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> There is another term we have to consider. I asked my friend: What do you think of the word “theory”? He was not interested in the topic, but he said that theory is about ideas. Theories come and go … and come back. What is purely theoretical is not really serious. Finally, he would prefer the phrase “The marine chimpanzee concept”. From his point of view, “concept” is related to the way of thinking. Finally, when I consider what I learned from my conversations with a 12-year-old boy, I find reasons to replace the phrase “Aquatic Ape Theory” by “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”.
>
> I’ll finish by emphasising that today, whatever the topic, we are in unprecedented situations. What can we do? We need to phrase appropriate questions.
>
>
>
> I’ll show you the cover of a book, published not long time ago. You don’t need to read this book. Just look at the cover. We are in the age of question marks.

Click here to read the complete article

Re: marine chimp??

<f8e203ce-d03c-487e-8dbe-7420f66ae37bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13375&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13375

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1884:b0:2ee:400f:49e2 with SMTP id v4-20020a05622a188400b002ee400f49e2mr2853308qtc.412.1649960857460;
Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:53c5:0:b0:42d:7bb4:a8e8 with SMTP id
k5-20020ad453c5000000b0042d7bb4a8e8mr13787184qvv.8.1649960857302; Thu, 14 Apr
2022 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:e18a:fbe:396a:c158;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:e18a:fbe:396a:c158
References: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com> <t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f8e203ce-d03c-487e-8dbe-7420f66ae37bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: marine chimp??
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:27:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 14
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:27 UTC

somebody:

> But, I don't see the need for this, AAT is well established term,
> you'll only introduce confusion, plus, the majority of proponents think
> that it was fresh water

:-DDD

No, my boy.
Again, schematically:
0) apes-apiths = aquarboreal
1) early-Pleist.H.erectus slow+shallow shellfish-diving,
2) mid-Pleist.H.neand. seasonally coast/diving->river/wading,
3) late-Pleist.H.sapiens: wading->walking.
Okidoki??

Re: marine chimp??

<t39pbo$qli$1@sunce.iskon.hr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13376&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13376

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr (Mario Petrinovic)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: marine chimp??
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:32:25 +0200
Organization: Iskon Internet d.d.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <t39pbo$qli$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
References: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>
<t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
<f8e203ce-d03c-487e-8dbe-7420f66ae37bn@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93-136-69-1.adsl.net.t-com.hr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1649961144 27314 93.136.69.1 (14 Apr 2022 18:32:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:32:24 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <f8e203ce-d03c-487e-8dbe-7420f66ae37bn@googlegroups.com>
 by: Mario Petrinovic - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:32 UTC

On 14.4.2022. 20:27, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> somebody:
>
>> But, I don't see the need for this, AAT is well established term,
>> you'll only introduce confusion, plus, the majority of proponents think
>> that it was fresh water
>
> :-DDD
>
> No, my boy.
> Again, schematically:
> 0) apes-apiths = aquarboreal
> 1) early-Pleist.H.erectus slow+shallow shellfish-diving,
> 2) mid-Pleist.H.neand. seasonally coast/diving->river/wading,
> 3) late-Pleist.H.sapiens: wading->walking.
> Okidoki??

Dokioki.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

Re: marine chimp??

<96f863d7-fb68-45b4-b715-ef62f201a201n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13377&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13377

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7281:0:b0:2ee:ed60:777a with SMTP id v1-20020ac87281000000b002eeed60777amr2901058qto.197.1649962491864;
Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21e3:b0:444:bfb:79a0 with SMTP id
p3-20020a05621421e300b004440bfb79a0mr4619293qvj.9.1649962491722; Thu, 14 Apr
2022 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t39pbo$qli$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:e18a:fbe:396a:c158;
posting-account=od9E6wkAAADQ0Qm7G0889JKn_DjHJ-bA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:a03f:89ef:3100:e18a:fbe:396a:c158
References: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>
<t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr> <f8e203ce-d03c-487e-8dbe-7420f66ae37bn@googlegroups.com>
<t39pbo$qli$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <96f863d7-fb68-45b4-b715-ef62f201a201n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: marine chimp??
From: littoral...@gmail.com (littor...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:54:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 5
 by: littor...@gmail.com - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:54 UTC

Op donderdag 14 april 2022 om 20:32:26 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:

> Dokioki.

Good boy.

Re: marine chimp??

<b0af8770-306d-4bc9-9ee3-e4c7df330be1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13380&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13380

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21a4:b0:444:51fb:aee8 with SMTP id t4-20020a05621421a400b0044451fbaee8mr5762984qvc.71.1649984697591;
Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:5ec4:0:b0:69c:1fae:2d91 with SMTP id
s187-20020a375ec4000000b0069c1fae2d91mr3895094qkb.379.1649984697258; Thu, 14
Apr 2022 18:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2607:fb90:9145:7327:0:41:453f:ea01;
posting-account=EMmeqwoAAAA_LjVgdifHm2aHM2oOTKz0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2607:fb90:9145:7327:0:41:453f:ea01
References: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com> <t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b0af8770-306d-4bc9-9ee3-e4c7df330be1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: marine chimp??
From: daud.de...@gmail.com (DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves)
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:04:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 261
 by: DD'eDeN aka not - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:04 UTC

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 1:26:38 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 14.4.2022. 18:12, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A transcript of my WhatTalks presentation has been written from the U Tube recording. Michel Odent
> >
> >
> > SELLING THE MARINE CHIMPANZEE CONCEPT
> >
> > Thank you, Algis, for this comment about power points. People my age (I am 92) don’t like power points. They need to look at the faces of people, to establish eye to eye contact without being distracted by pictures. This is how I’ll talk with you today.
> >
> > As Algis said, our point of departure is the term “aquatic ape theory”. We’ll first wonder how marketable and mediatic this term can be. This is not a new question. About 30 years ago, at a seminar at San Rafael, in California, the clever editor of “Mind/Body bulletin”, as if surprised, asked Elaine Morgan why she had published a book titled “The Aquatic Ape” after publishing “The Descent of Woman”. Elaine immediately, without thinking, replied: “Scientists did not like The Descent of Woman because it was a best seller. This is why the following book was titled “The Aquatic Ape”. This was a funny way to say: “I assume that this title will not be immediately attractive”. It was a clever answer, 30 years ago. Since that time, we can observe that the media never use the term “aquatic ape”, even when they publish biographies of Elaine.. Recently, when a statue of Elaine was unveiled, her biography appeared in many journals, such as The Guardian. The term “aquatic ape” never appeared. Journalists don’t forget, on the other hand, to mention that when Elaine appeared for the first time at Oxford University people thought she was a cleaning lady.
> >
> > There are therefore good reasons to wonder if the term “Aquatic ape” is marketable. Can it become better known and popular? Should we replace it?
> >
> > Personally, I always try to avoid this term. Algis mentioned the title of one of my books: The birth of Homo, the marine chimpanzee. I suggest that we contrast “Aquatic Ape Theory” and “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”. To suggest a solution to this issue, I suggest that we follow the advice given by Stephen Munro in the framework of Whats Talk. He started by saying: don’t lose time by listening to experts. He was probably suggesting that we never know about the ulterior motives of experts… and he gave a list of people we should communicate with when we need to find a solution to a difficult issue. Children were at the top of the list.
> >
> > I followed the advice of Stephen Munro and initiated a conversation with my friend Lughan, a clever 12-year-old boy. I started with a question: for your birthday, I am planning to give you a book as a present. You must choose between two titles: one title would be “we are aquatic apes” and the other one “we are marine chimpanzees”. Within two seconds Lughan had enthusiastically replied: we are chimpanzees! I am fascinated by the work of Jane Goodall! Of course, we belong to the family of chimpanzees! etc. I immediately understood his point of view. There are similarities between the way of thinking of children and nonagenarians.
> >
> > After a series of conversations with my friend Lughan, I gradually found rational ways to support his point of view. Taking into account what I understood as a medical practitioner, I found reasons to clarify what we are currently learning about human nature. There are reasons to contrast the term “aquatic” with the term “marine”, the term “ape” with the term “chimpanzee” and the term “theory” with the term “concept” .
> >
> > Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Let us start with marine versus aquatic. I’ll reply as a doctor known for his practice of obstetrics. We’ll start with the mysterious issue of vernix caseosa. Until the 21st century, in the medical literature, there was no interest in vernix caseosa. In textbooks, it was just mentioned that when babies are born at term, their skin is covered with a kind of cream “like cheese” (caseosa). It was also mentioned that only human babies were born with their skin covered by this cream. When I was a medical student called “externe” in the obstetrical department of a Paris hospital’ (in 1953) the vernix was usually wiped away. It was denied any function’.
> >
> > As many of you know, the turning point took place during the 21st century, in 2005. It was not induced by the result of a study published in an academic journal. It was a programme presented by David Attenborough on BBC radio 4. The title of the programme was “The scars of evolution”. This how we learned that, according to Don Bowen, a marine biologist from Nova Scotia, seals are also born with their skin covered with vernix..
> >
> > We must underline that before that time there had been missed opportunities to wonder if there are sea mammals born with their skin covered with vernix.
> >
> > In 1979 and 1981, in West Australia, there have been studies evaluating the amounts of squalene in the amniotic fluid as a way to detect post mature foetuses. Let us recall that squalene is an oily substance abundant among marine living creatures (the root of word squalene is squalus, which means shark in latin). However, nobody thought, at that time, to compare human newborn babies and the new born babies of sea mammals. There was another missed opportunity in 2000. A team of American dermatologists wanted to develop a protective cream for premature babies. They tried to imitate vernix caseosa. They were interested in “corneocytes” that work like sponges and are protective in case of immersion in hypertonic water. However, they did not consider the case of sea mammals. In 2008 there was a study of the content of vernix caseosa focusing on branched chain fatty acids. They are special saturated fatty acids with a methyl radical (CH3) attached to one or several carbon atoms of the molecule. Because the authors of this study had not heard about the non-published observations about seals, they could not think of comparing with the vernix caseosa of sea mammals.
> >
> > Finally, there was a last turning point in 2018. A team in California studied the particular case of sea lions. The authors were not aware of the observations by Don Bowen about seals. Foetuses of sea lions also have their skin covered with human-like vernix. At the end of pregnancy, particles of vernix are detached from the skin and they enrich the amniotic fluid. This is how foetuses of sea lions and humans swallow molecules of branched chain fatty acids that will play an important role in the way the gut flora is established. It would be important to study in depth the similarities between humans and sea mammals in terms of development of the gut flora.
> >
> > There are many other reasons to contrast the terms aquatic and marine. One of them is the need in iodine. Most human beings - if they don’t have easy access to the sea food chain, - cannot consume a sufficient amount of iodine. It is the most common nutritional deficiency in the world, at such a point that many governments have established regulations so that table salt is enriched with iodine. It is a serious issue among pregnant and lactating women, when the need in iodine is multiplied by about 1.5.
> >
> > We know why it is serious. Homo is characterised by a huge brain. The development and the functions of the brain are highly dependent on thyroid hormones. Iodine is necessary for their synthesis. The American Thyroid Association (ATA) claims that pregnant women should take a daily iodine supplement of 150 μg. According to a British study, when pregnant women take such a supplement, the average IQ of their children is multiplied by 1.22. So, when we consider the most common nutritional deficiency among modern humans, we feel obliged to prefer the term “marine” to the term “aquatic”.
> >
> > The brain is a fatty organ. This implies that it has specific needs in term of lipids. It has, in particular, specific needs in DHA (docosahexaenoic acid). DHA is a molecule of omega 3 fatty acid as long and as desaturated as possible (22 carbons and 6 double bonds). The point is that the human enzymatic system is not very effective to synthesize DHA, which is preformed and abundant in the sea food chain only. If human beings don’t have access to sea food their enzymatic system (desaturase and elongase) must transform the parent molecule of the omega 3 family (only 28 carbons and 3 double bonds) which is provided by the land food chain. The point is that this enzymatic system is not very effective among humans. This is one of the most mysterious aspects of human nature: the highly developed brain needs the fatty acid DHA, but the human enzymatic system is not very effective at synthetising this molecule, which is preformed in the sea food chain. Enzymes need the help catalysts, mostly minerals provided by the land food chain. The point is that this metabolic pathway is fragile. It can be weakened by emotional states associated with the release of corticosteroids, such as being sad or depressed, and by potential inhibitory factors such as the consumption of pure sugar, alcohol, trans fatty acids, and man-made food in general. Ideally, we probably need to consume fatty acids provided by the sea food chain.
> >
> > A reference to our enzymatic system is providing another reason to develop the concept of “marine”. There are very aquatic mammals that do not have access to a marine environment. This is the case, for example, of water voles, otters, rhinoceros, elephants and hippopotamus. We don’t have many common points with them. When we claim that we are special compared with the other mammals, we find reasons to emphasize our common points with sea mammals rather than aquatic mammals in general. We have reasons to replace “aquatic” by “marine”.
> >
> > Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > “Ape” is the second term we have to discuss. Do we have reasons to replace the term “ape” by the term “chimpanzee”? Once more, I required the point of view of my friend Lughan. I asked him: “Do you prefer to say that we are apes or that we are chimpanzees?”. He immediately replied: “Oh, chimpanzees! We look like chimpanzees! We are friends with chimpanzees! Apes … I don’t know exactly what it means!” As a matter of fact, it is difficult to translate “ape”. In the age of globalisation, we must realise that “ape” cannot be translated into many languages. It cannot be translated into French, my mother tongue. We can translate “primate”, “monkey”, “chimpanzee”, but not “ape”. This might be the first reason to prefer “chimpanzee”.
> >
> > Another reason is to consider the chimpanzee-homo split. We are cousins.. We probably separated at a precise time. This is accepted by many scientists today. I don’t want to discuss this issue. I just explained to Lughan that according to some experts we separated 4 million years ago, or 5 according to others, or 6, etc. He was not interested in that at all. He wanted to know where the split took place. I could only say that it probably happened where the populations of chimpanzees were abundant. The chimpanzees where living mostly in West Africa, around the Equator, in places that are now called Gabon, Cameroun Equatorial Guinea, and so on. So, we were wondering if there are places where both fossils of chimpanzees and human beings have been found. The answer was “no” because one cannot find fossils unless the geological and climatic conditions are perfect. In the place where the split probably took place, there are heavy equatorial rains and inadequate geological conditions, so that it is impossible to find relevant fossils. One effect of the split probably was that our ancestors had acquired the capacity to develop a huge brain. To satisfy the nutritional needs of such a potentially big brain, they probably started to adapt to coastal areas, The point is that there have been such spectacular fluctuations of sea levels during the last millions of years that we’ll probably never find fossils of human beings originally adapted to the coast. Finally, Lughan and I had to confess that we have a lot to learn.
> >
> > From our conversations we had realised that we must focus on what we don’t know. How can we know more? There are emerging disciplines that can help us in the future. This is the case of virology. There are mysterious questions about the colonisation of our genes by viruses. For example, we may wonder why a virus called CERV2 has colonised the genes of chimpanzees, but not the genes of humans. It means that the contamination took place after the split. It also means that after the split Homo probably evolved in isolated places. We cannot say more.
> >
> > Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > There is another term we have to consider. I asked my friend: What do you think of the word “theory”? He was not interested in the topic, but he said that theory is about ideas. Theories come and go … and come back. What is purely theoretical is not really serious. Finally, he would prefer the phrase “The marine chimpanzee concept”. From his point of view, “concept” is related to the way of thinking. Finally, when I consider what I learned from my conversations with a 12-year-old boy, I find reasons to replace the phrase “Aquatic Ape Theory” by “Marine Chimpanzee Concept”.
> >
> > I’ll finish by emphasising that today, whatever the topic, we are in unprecedented situations. What can we do? We need to phrase appropriate questions.
> >
> >
> >
> > I’ll show you the cover of a book, published not long time ago. You don’t need to read this book. Just look at the cover. We are in the age of question marks.
> "...Chimpanzee..." simply cannot be, because for sure we are not
> chimpanzees, we are built completely different.
> You can replace "ape" with "primate" (yes, there is not a word for
> "ape" in Croatian, too).
> But, I don't see the need for this, AAT is well established term,
> you'll only introduce confusion, plus, the majority of proponents think
> that it was fresh water, so there would be a split in the community.
> While we are at viruses, as far as I know, we share more of those
> things with orangs than with chimps. So, we did split from chimps, but
> we lived closer to orangs. If you are searching for a place where you
> can find traces of humans and apes at roughly the same time, take a look
> at Europe.
> And lastly, I am, just like a lot of smart people should be, allergic
> to people who want to sell me something. This should be a scientific
> topic, not a marketing topic. So, you'll cause the opposite effect,
> people will turn away from you if you are trying so much to sell them
> something.
>
> --
> https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
> human-e...@googlegroups.com


Click here to read the complete article
Re: marine chimp??

<t3as78$jvn$1@sunce.iskon.hr>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=13383&group=sci.anthropology.paleo#13383

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mario.pe...@zg.htnet.hr (Mario Petrinovic)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: Re: marine chimp??
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 06:27:20 +0200
Organization: Iskon Internet d.d.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <t3as78$jvn$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
References: <f27d0356-3c62-4bfa-97ba-7f07cc8667ben@googlegroups.com>
<t39lgd$nte$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
<f8e203ce-d03c-487e-8dbe-7420f66ae37bn@googlegroups.com>
<t39pbo$qli$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
<96f863d7-fb68-45b4-b715-ef62f201a201n@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93-136-69-1.adsl.net.t-com.hr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1649996840 20471 93.136.69.1 (15 Apr 2022 04:27:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 04:27:20 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <96f863d7-fb68-45b4-b715-ef62f201a201n@googlegroups.com>
 by: Mario Petrinovic - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 04:27 UTC

On 14.4.2022. 20:54, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op donderdag 14 april 2022 om 20:32:26 UTC+2 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
>
>
>> Dokioki.
>
> Good boy.

Kikidoki.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-evolution@googlegroups.com

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor