littor...@gmail.com wrote:
schreef JTEM is so reasonable:
https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg
Personally, I am not a fan of this image. I think it views Aquatic
Ape as something of a panacea, explaining a host of things that
may be better matched with/explained by other models.
However, this was cited by the savanna cult as some kind of
evidence against Aquatic Ape, so...
Use the image. Go through all the "Adaptations" they identify &
explain how savanna idiocy resulted in these adaptations.
IIRC, I used this illustration in one of my lectures, but forgot who made it (becoming older...),
google "david attenborough marc verhaegen".
So you know, better than I could, how the savanna cult is quick to attack
it but unwilling to offer alternative explanations, incorporating the
savanna nonsense.
...personally I suspect that the penis thing, for example, is better explained by r/K Selection, however limited. In short: Some populations
were sexually selected while others were not. It also seems that unless
there's something funky going on with the DNA, which I don't have enough knowledge to rule out, we'd have to have a social dynamic where females
were doing the selection. Otherwise, there's no selective pressure on the
male anatomy!
I would also argue that just standing upright, making the genitals
prominent, would be a major factor. How else could a female select for
penis size, if they're not getting a good look at it BEFORE mating?
Where Aquatic Ape comes in, as far as I can see, is in spreading Homo,
allowing all these DIFFERENT populations to result, so that one or more
could be sexually selected while one or more were not... explaining not
just larger penises in Homo than other species, but the variation within
Homo.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703468006592905216
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
