Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] News: Big brains, no fur, sinuses . are these clues to our ancestors' lives as 'aquatic apes'?

Expand Messages
  • Stan Franklin
    The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape hypothesis. Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent. Please
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 30, 2013
    The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape hypothesis.

    Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent. Please see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E. (2009). Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.

    Stan


    On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...> wrote:
     

    Big brains, no fur, sinuses … are these clues to our ancestors' lives as 'aquatic apes'?

    Controversial theory that seeks to explain one of the great leaps of human evolution finds new support but still divides scientists

    Robin McKie
    The Observer, Saturday 27 April 2013 14.15 BST
     
    Female western lowland gorillaA female western lowland gorilla walks through a river. Some scientists believe our ancestors lived an aquatic lifestyle.
    Photograph: Getty

    It is one of the most unusual evolutionary ideas ever proposed: humans are amphibious apes who lost their fur, started to walk upright and developed big brains because they took to living the good life by the water's edge.

    This is the aquatic ape theory and although treated with derision by some academics over the past 50 years, it is still backed by a small, but committed group of scientists. Next week they will hold a major London conference when several speakers, including David Attenborough, will voice support for the theory.

    "Humans are very different from other apes," said Peter Rhys Evans, an organiser of Human Evolution: Past, Present and Future. "We lack fur, walk upright, have big brains and subcutaneous fat and have a descended larynx, a feature common among aquatic animals but not apes."

    Standard evolutionary models suggest these different features appeared at separate times and for different reasons. The aquatic ape theory argues they all occurred because our ancestors decided to live in or near water for hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of years.

    The theory was first proposed in 1960 by British biologist Sir Alister Hardy, who believed apes descended from the trees to live, not on the savannah as is usually supposed, but in flooded creeks, river banks and sea shores, some of Earth's richest sources of food. To keep their heads above water, they evolved an upright stance, freeing their hands to make tools to crack open shellfish. Then they lost their body hair and instead developed a thick layer of subcutaneous fat to keep warm in the water.

    Scientists have since added other human attributes of claimed aquatic origin – a recent addition being the sinus, said Rhys Evans, an expert on head and neck physiology at the Royal Marsden hospital, London.

    "Humans have particularly large sinuses, spaces in the skull between our cheeks, noses and foreheads," he added. "But why do we have empty spaces in our heads? It makes no sense until we consider the evolutionary perspective. Then it becomes clear: our sinuses acted as buoyancy aids that helped keep our heads above water."

    Other palaeontologists dismiss parts of the theory. One or two human features could have arisen because our ancestors picked homes near the sea but the entire package of attributes – lack of fur, upright posture, big brains, sinuses and others – is just too much, they add.

    "I think that wading in a watery environment is as good an explanation, at the moment, for our upright gait as any other theory for human bipedalism," said Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, London. "But the whole aquatic ape package includes attributes that appeared at very different times in our evolution. If they were all the result of our lives in watery environments, we would have to have spent millions of years there and there is no evidence for this - not to mention like crocodiles and other creatures would have made the water a very dangerous place."

    It is not just human physiology that reveals our aquatic past, argue the theory's supporters. Our brain biochemistry is also revealing. "Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is an omega-3 fatty acid that is found in large amounts in seafood," said Dr Michael Crawford, of Imperial College London.

    "It boosts brain growth in mammals. That is why a dolphin has a much bigger brain than a zebra, though they have roughly the same body sizes. The dolphin has a diet rich in DHA. The crucial point is that without a high DHA diet from seafood we could not have developed our big brains. We got smart from eating fish and living in water.

    "More to the point, we now face a world in which sources of DHA – our fish stocks – are threatened. That has crucial consequences for our species. Without plentiful DHA, we face a future of increased mental illness and intellectual deterioration. We need to face up to that urgently. That is the real lesson of the aquatic ape theory."

    Birth of a notion

    Originally outlined by biologist Alister Hardy, the aquatic ape hypothesis achieved prominence when the theory was taken up by the Welsh writer Elaine Morgan in the early 70s. (Her previous work had included writing episodes of Dr Finlay's Casebook.)

    Morgan became infuriated with male-dominated explanations for human attributes such as hairlessness. According to prevailing ideas, human males lost their body hair when they took up hunting and needed to sweat profusely in the African heat. But no explanation was given to account for loss of female body hair. As a result, Morgan turned to the aquatic ape theory, which she believed provided a more balanced vision of human evolution. Morgan wrote a popular account of the theory, The Descent of Women, which became a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. She followed this up with other books on the subject, including The Scars of Evolution and The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. Most recently, Morgan defended her belief at a TedX presentation in 2009.

    • This article was amended on Saturday 27 April to add a "no" to this quote: "we would have to have spent millions of years there and there is evidence for this".

    Source: The Guardian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/apr/27/aquatic-ape-theory-primate-evolution

    Posted by
    Robert Karl Stonjek




    --
    Stan Franklin   Professor   Computer Science
    W. Harry  Feinstone  Interdisciplinary  Research   Professor
    Institute for Intelligent Systems        
    FedEx Institute of Technology              
    The University of Memphis
    Memphis, TN 38152 USA  
    901-678-1341
    <http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/~franklin/>  
    lab <http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/>

  • hibbsa
    Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most consistent and powerful of them
    Message 2 of 19 , May 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the
      evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
      consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers -
      crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
      global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power of
      fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
      ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above ground
      grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and then
      spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to survive
      any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out. More
      so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses to
      regrow stronger than before.

      Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
      grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
      ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands. But
      the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary strategy,
      meant that the occurence of fire was immensely predictable....correlated
      with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were always
      similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The relationship
      of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.

      The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge that
      would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
      objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things. The
      first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be able
      to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool end
      of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves from
      their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests, away
      from the Fire-Ape.

      Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
      been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed our
      intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing that
      surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental processing
      of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire provides
      a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
      advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and groups
      alike.

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
      >
      > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape
      > hypothesis.
      >
      > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent.
      Please
      > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E. (2009).
      > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
      AMERICAN
      > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
      >
      > Stan
      >
      > --
      > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
      > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
      > Institute for Intelligent Systems
      > FedEx Institute of Technology
      > The University of Memphis
      > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
      > 901-678-1341
      >
      > lab
    • Edgar Owen
      Hibbsa, Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking... Edgar ... Hibbsa, Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking...
      Message 3 of 19 , May 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hibbsa,

        Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking...

        Edgar



        On May 1, 2013, at 5:56 AM, hibbsa wrote:

         

        Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the
        evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
        consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers -
        crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
        global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power of
        fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
        ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above ground
        grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and then
        spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to survive
        any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out. More
        so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses to
        regrow stronger than before.

        Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
        grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
        ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands. But
        the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary strategy,
        meant that the occurence of fire was immensely predictable....correlated
        with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were always
        similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The relationship
        of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.

        The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge that
        would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
        objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things. The
        first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be able
        to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool end
        of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves from
        their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests, away
        from the Fire-Ape.

        Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
        been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed our
        intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing that
        surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental processing
        of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire provides
        a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
        advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and groups
        alike.

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
        >
        > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape
        > hypothesis.
        >
        > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent.
        Please
        > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E. (2009).
        > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
        AMERICAN
        > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
        >
        > Stan
        >
        > --
        > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
        > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
        > Institute for Intelligent Systems
        > FedEx Institute of Technology
        > The University of Memphis
        > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
        > 901-678-1341
        >
        > lab


      • james kohl
        From: Edgar Owen Hibbsa, Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking... Edgar JK: Obviously, Edgar thinks what we need
        Message 4 of 19 , May 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: Edgar Owen
          Hibbsa,

          Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking...

          Edgar

          JK: Obviously, Edgar thinks what we need are more hypotheses that can't be tested.� That is the only way to avoid dealing with the biological facts, which is the over-riding theme here.� On the other hand, the Fire-Ape hypothesis might be included as an after-thought in my model of Nutrient-dependent / Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation. Cooking food, for example, would alter it's nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetic effects on adaptive evolution, and the effects could be linked to primate-specific microRNA/messenger RNA balance- controlled brain development.


          James V. Kohl
          Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
          Independent researcher
          Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.



          On May 1, 2013, at 5:56 AM, hibbsa wrote:

          Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the
          evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
          consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers -
          crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
          global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power of
          fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
          ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above ground
          grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and then
          spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to survive
          any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out. More
          so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses to
          regrow stronger than before.

          Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
          grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
          ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands. But
          the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary strategy,
          meant that the occurence of fire was immensely predictable....correlated
          with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were always
          similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The relationship
          of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.

          The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge that
          would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
          objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things. The
          first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be able
          to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool end
          of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves from
          their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests, away
          from the Fire-Ape.

          Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
          been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed our
          intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing that
          surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental processing
          of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire provides
          a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
          advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and groups
          alike.

          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
          >
          > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape
          > hypothesis.
          >
          > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent.
          Please
          > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E. (2009).
          > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
          AMERICAN
          > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
          >
          > Stan
          >
          > --
          > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
          > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
          > Institute for Intelligent Systems
          > FedEx Institute of Technology
          > The University of Memphis
          > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
          > 901-678-1341
          >
          > lab


        • hibbsa
          I would say the challenge for you would be explaining how grasses came to harness fire as part of their evolutionary strategy? Was it blind luck...in which
          Message 5 of 19 , May 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I would say the challenge for you would be explaining how grasses came to harness fire as part of their evolutionary strategy? Was it blind luck...in which case would that be an instance of natural selection?

            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
            >
            > Hibbsa,
            >
            >
            > Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking...
            >
            > Edgar
            >
            > JK: Obviously, Edgar thinks what we need are more hypotheses that can't be
            > tested. That is the only way to avoid dealing with the biological facts, which
            > is the over-riding theme here. On the other hand, the Fire-Ape hypothesis might
            > be included as an after-thought in my model of Nutrient-dependent /
            > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation. Cooking food, for
            > example, would alter it's nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetic
            > effects on adaptive evolution, and the effects could be linked to
            > primate-specific microRNA/messenger RNA balance- controlled brain development.
            >
            >
            > James V. Kohl
            > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
            > Independent researcher
            > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the
            > socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience &
            > Psychology, 2: 17338.
            >
            >
            >
            <snip>
          • Edgar Owen
            Hibbsa, Kohl s crackpot theory would have us believe that grasses evolved because of something their predecessors ate or smelled . And grasses then evolved to
            Message 6 of 19 , May 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hibbsa,

              Kohl's crackpot theory would have us believe that grasses evolved because of something their predecessors "ate or smelled". And grasses then evolved to harness fire because of something the grasses "ate or smelled". 

              The actual reason of course is that the grasses which had slightly better resistance to fire were the ones that preferentially survived it and reproduced.

              Edgar



              On May 1, 2013, at 10:59 AM, hibbsa wrote:

               

              I would say the challenge for you would be explaining how grasses came to harness fire as part of their evolutionary strategy? Was it blind luck...in which case would that be an instance of natural selection?

              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
              >
              > Hibbsa,
              >
              >
              > Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking...
              >
              > Edgar
              >
              > JK: Obviously, Edgar thinks what we need are more hypotheses that can't be
              > tested. That is the only way to avoid dealing with the biological facts, which
              > is the over-riding theme here. On the other hand, the Fire-Ape hypothesis might
              > be included as an after-thought in my model of Nutrient-dependent /
              > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation. Cooking food, for
              > example, would alter it's nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetic
              > effects on adaptive evolution, and the effects could be linked to
              > primate-specific microRNA/messenger RNA balance- controlled brain development.
              >
              >
              > James V. Kohl
              > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
              > Independent researcher
              > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the
              > socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience &
              > Psychology, 2: 17338.
              >
              >
              >
              <snip>


            • Steve Corsini
              Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man
              Message 7 of 19 , May 1, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis?

                See: Charles Darwin  The Descent of Man [ 1871 ]

                Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

                 

                 

                From: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com [mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hibbsa
                Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2013 5:57 PM
                To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [evol-psych] News: Big brains, no fur, sinuses . are these clues to our ancestors' lives as 'aquatic apes'?

                 

                 

                There should be, because the
                evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
                consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers -
                crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
                global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power of
                fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
                ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above ground
                grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and then
                spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to survive
                any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out. More
                so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses to
                regrow stronger than before.

                Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
                grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
                ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands. But
                the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary strategy,
                meant that the occurence of fire was immensely predictable....correlated
                with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were always
                similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The relationship
                of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.

                The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge that
                would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
                objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things. The
                first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be able
                to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool end
                of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves from
                their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests, away
                from the Fire-Ape.

                Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
                been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed our
                intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing that
                surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental processing
                of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire provides
                a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
                advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and groups
                alike.

                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
                >
                > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape
                > hypothesis.
                >
                > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent.
                Please
                > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E. (2009).
                > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
                AMERICAN
                > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
                >
                > Stan
                >
                > --
                > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
                > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
                > Institute for Intelligent Systems
                > FedEx Institute of Technology
                > The University of Memphis
                > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
                > 901-678-1341
                >
                > lab

              • Stan Franklin
                There s a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books. Stan ... -- Stan Franklin Professor
                Message 8 of 19 , May 1, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.

                  Stan


                  On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:56 AM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:
                   

                  Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the
                  evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
                  consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers -
                  crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
                  global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power of
                  fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
                  ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above ground
                  grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and then
                  spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to survive
                  any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out. More
                  so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses to
                  regrow stronger than before.

                  Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
                  grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
                  ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands. But
                  the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary strategy,
                  meant that the occurence of fire was immensely predictable....correlated
                  with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were always
                  similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The relationship
                  of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.

                  The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge that
                  would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
                  objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things. The
                  first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be able
                  to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool end
                  of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves from
                  their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests, away
                  from the Fire-Ape.

                  Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
                  been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed our
                  intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing that
                  surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental processing
                  of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire provides
                  a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
                  advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and groups
                  alike.



                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
                  >
                  > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic ape
                  > hypothesis.
                  >
                  > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some extent.
                  Please
                  > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E. (2009).
                  > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
                  AMERICAN
                  > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
                  >
                  > Stan
                  >
                  > --
                  > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
                  > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
                  > Institute for Intelligent Systems
                  > FedEx Institute of Technology
                  > The University of Memphis
                  > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
                  > 901-678-1341
                  >
                  > lab




                  --
                  Stan Franklin   Professor   Computer Science
                  W. Harry  Feinstone  Interdisciplinary  Research   Professor
                  Institute for Intelligent Systems        
                  FedEx Institute of Technology              
                  The University of Memphis
                  Memphis, TN 38152 USA  
                  901-678-1341
                  <http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/~franklin/>  
                  lab <http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/>

                • JVKohl
                  hibbsa, We have probably all read The Aquatic Ape, and The Scented Ape, which are book length representations of the biological facts I detailed in Human
                  Message 9 of 19 , May 1, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    hibbsa,

                    We have probably all read "The Aquatic Ape," and "The Scented Ape," which are book length representations of the biological facts I detailed in Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Still, there remains a significant number of participants here who are completely unaware of past paradigm shifts (e.g., in The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality). Among them we have you with your challenge for me to explain "how grasses came to harness fire"  -- ? in the context of "The Fire Ape" hypothesis? or some other context unknown to me. How do you explain how grasses came to harness fire as part of their evolutionary strategy? What, are you trying to tell us?

                    -- 
                    James V. Kohl
                    Medical laboratory scientist
                    ASCP AMT ASCLS
                    Independent researcher
                    Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                    Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                    http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338



                    On 5/1/2013 10:59 AM, hibbsa wrote:
                     

                    I would say the challenge for you would be explaining how grasses came to harness fire as part of their evolutionary strategy? Was it blind luck...in which case would that be an instance of natural selection?

                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl <jvkohl@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
                    >
                    > Hibbsa,
                    >
                    >
                    > Great post. One of the few here posted with original thinking...
                    >
                    > Edgar
                    >
                    > JK: Obviously, Edgar thinks what we need are more hypotheses that can't be
                    > tested. That is the only way to avoid dealing with the biological facts, which
                    > is the over-riding theme here. On the other hand, the Fire-Ape hypothesis might
                    > be included as an after-thought in my model of Nutrient-dependent /
                    > Pheromone-controlled thermodynamics and thermoregulation. Cooking food, for
                    > example, would alter it's nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled epigenetic
                    > effects on adaptive evolution, and the effects could be linked to
                    > primate-specific microRNA/messenger RNA balance- controlled brain development.
                    >
                    >
                    > James V. Kohl
                    > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                    > Independent researcher
                    > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the
                    > socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience &
                    > Psychology, 2: 17338.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    <snip>



                    
                    
                  • JVKohl
                    Excerpted from below: Fire. It s a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have been necessary to drive human evolution The feedback mechanisms that
                    Message 10 of 19 , May 1, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Excerpted from below: Fire. It's a great source of the feedback
                      mechanisms that would have been necessary to drive human evolution

                      The feedback mechanisms that drive adaptive evolution of the human brain
                      and behavior are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Why is
                      this not clear? Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with
                      reproduction <http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674%2805%2900981-5>.
                      This isn't simply the case with vertebrates, it's the same with species
                      from microbes to man. Feedback between Population and Evolutionary
                      Dynamics Determines the Fate of Social Microbial Populations.
                      <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001547> See also:
                      Pheromone-Induced Morphogenesis Improves Osmoadaptation Capacity by
                      Activating the HOG MAPK Pathway
                      <http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/272/ra26>

                      Does the level of ignorance here seem to anyone else to be increasing
                      against the flow of information from virtually every scientific source
                      and from every different discipline I have integrated into my model? How
                      can anyone explain that phenomenon? Are random mutations causes the
                      brains of evolutionary theorists to regress to a more primitive state as
                      occurs with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution
                      and eye regression in cave fish?
                      <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001547>

                      --
                      James V. Kohl
                      Medical laboratory scientist
                      ASCP AMT ASCLS
                      Independent researcher
                      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                      Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                      http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338

                      =================================

                      Steve,

                      Why not just cite the part that states "...and by the aid of fire cooks food otherwise indigestible." In my model, that's the nutrient-dependent part of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution. Is there a part that tells us how mutations are involved in adaptive evolution?

                      Do you realize you just cited the chapter in which Darwin repeatedly mentions his 'conditons of existence' / conditions for life, which we now know are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled?

                      • … changed conditions of life are of the highest importance in causing variability, both by acting directly on the organisation, and indirectly by affecting the reproductive system … (author‟s italics)” and “it is generally acknowledged that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws – „Unity of Type‟ and the „Conditions of Existence‟ … in fact the law of the ‘Conditions of Existence’ is the higher law, as it includes, through the inheritance of former variations and adaptations, that of Unity of Type” (Origin, Chapters 5 & 6, 6th edition). -- from Marsh (2011)

                      Do you think that most evolutionary theorists are even minimally aware of what Darwin really said, or like me do you think they simply bought into the bastardized version of his work because they did not have the intelligence to grasp the complexity or consistency?

                      -- James V. Kohl
                      Medical laboratory scientist
                      ASCP AMT ASCLS
                      Independent researcher
                      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                      Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                      http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338

                      On 5/1/2013 12:23 PM, Steve Corsini wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis?
                      >
                      > See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
                      >
                      > Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

                      =========================================

                      On 5/1/2013 1:48 PM, Stan Franklin wrote:
                      >
                      > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                      >
                      > Stan
                      OK, let's be clear then. For some reason I have not made that point in my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.
                      And I think that reason is ignorance of extant literature that most people away from this group have integrated into their opinions about adaptive evolution.

                      -- James V. Kohl
                      Medical laboratory scientist
                      ASCP AMT ASCLS
                      Independent researcher
                      Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                      Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                      http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                    • hibbsa
                      Hi Stan - the importance of fire and cooking are obviously well understood. It s one of the first images school kids are taught.cavemen conquering fire. The
                      Message 11 of 19 , May 2, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Stan - the importance of fire and cooking are obviously well
                        understood. It's one of the first images school kids are taught.cavemen
                        conquering fire.

                        The distinctiveness I suppose was the intersection of grasses and
                        humans, fire being a key thread given the importance of fire in the
                        spread of grasses that saw their rise to dominance.

                        I wasn't seriously suggesting any of that was original of course....I
                        seriously recognize this sort of thing as low hanging fruit that will
                        have been thoroughly explored.


                        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
                        >
                        > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching
                        Fire:
                        > How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                        >
                        > Stan
                        >
                        >
                        > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:56 AM, hibbsa hibbsa@... wrote:
                        >
                        > > **
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the
                        > > evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
                        > > consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers
                        -
                        > > crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
                        > > global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power
                        of
                        > > fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
                        > > ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above
                        ground
                        > > grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and
                        then
                        > > spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to
                        survive
                        > > any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out.
                        More
                        > > so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses
                        to
                        > > regrow stronger than before.
                        > >
                        > > Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
                        > > grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
                        > > ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands.
                        But
                        > > the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary
                        strategy,
                        > > meant that the occurence of fire was immensely
                        predictable....correlated
                        > > with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were
                        always
                        > > similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The
                        relationship
                        > > of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.
                        > >
                        > > The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge
                        that
                        > > would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
                        > > objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things.
                        The
                        > > first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be
                        able
                        > > to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool
                        end
                        > > of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves
                        from
                        > > their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests,
                        away
                        > > from the Fire-Ape.
                        > >
                        > > Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
                        > > been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed
                        our
                        > > intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing
                        that
                        > > surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental
                        processing
                        > > of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire
                        provides
                        > > a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
                        > > advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and
                        groups
                        > > alike.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic
                        ape
                        > > > hypothesis.
                        > > >
                        > > > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some
                        extent.
                        > > Please
                        > > > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E.
                        (2009).
                        > > > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
                        > > AMERICAN
                        > > > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
                        > > >
                        > > > Stan
                        > > >
                        > > > --
                        > > > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
                        > > > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
                        > > > Institute for Intelligent Systems
                        > > > FedEx Institute of Technology
                        > > > The University of Memphis
                        > > > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
                        > > > 901-678-1341
                        > > >
                        > > > lab
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
                        > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
                        > Institute for Intelligent Systems
                        > FedEx Institute of Technology
                        > The University of Memphis
                        > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
                        > 901-678-1341
                        >
                        > lab
                        >
                      • hibbsa
                        Jim - but how would you explain the genetic harnessing of fire by grasses, as part of a successful strategy of supplanting forests? Just give a straight and
                        Message 12 of 19 , May 2, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim - but how would you explain the genetic harnessing of fire by
                          grasses, as part of a successful strategy of supplanting forests?

                          Just give a straight and direct answer to this specific problem old boy.




                          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, JVKohl wrote:
                          >
                          > Excerpted from below: Fire. It's a great source of the feedback
                          > mechanisms that would have been necessary to drive human evolution
                          >
                          > The feedback mechanisms that drive adaptive evolution of the human
                          brain
                          > and behavior are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Why is
                          > this not clear? Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with
                          > reproduction .
                          > This isn't simply the case with vertebrates, it's the same with
                          species
                          > from microbes to man. Feedback between Population and Evolutionary
                          > Dynamics Determines the Fate of Social Microbial Populations.
                          > See also:
                          > Pheromone-Induced Morphogenesis Improves Osmoadaptation Capacity by
                          > Activating the HOG MAPK Pathway
                          >
                          >
                          > Does the level of ignorance here seem to anyone else to be increasing
                          > against the flow of information from virtually every scientific source
                          > and from every different discipline I have integrated into my model?
                          How
                          > can anyone explain that phenomenon? Are random mutations causes the
                          > brains of evolutionary theorists to regress to a more primitive state
                          as
                          > occurs with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution
                          > and eye regression in cave fish?
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > James V. Kohl
                          > Medical laboratory scientist
                          > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                          > Independent researcher
                          > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                          > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                          > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                          >
                          > =================================
                          >
                          > Steve,
                          >
                          > Why not just cite the part that states "...and by the aid of fire
                          cooks food otherwise indigestible." In my model, that's the
                          nutrient-dependent part of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
                          adaptive evolution. Is there a part that tells us how mutations are
                          involved in adaptive evolution?
                          >
                          > Do you realize you just cited the chapter in which Darwin repeatedly
                          mentions his 'conditons of existence' / conditions for life, which we
                          now know are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled?
                          >
                          > • … changed conditions of life are of the highest importance
                          in causing variability, both by acting directly on the organisation, and
                          indirectly by affecting the reproductive system … (author‟s
                          italics)" and "it is generally acknowledged that all organic
                          beings have been formed on two great laws – „Unity of
                          Type‟ and the „Conditions of Existence‟ … in fact
                          the law of the `Conditions of Existence' is the higher law, as
                          it includes, through the inheritance of former variations and
                          adaptations, that of Unity of Type" (Origin, Chapters 5 & 6, 6th
                          edition). -- from Marsh (2011)
                          >
                          > Do you think that most evolutionary theorists are even minimally aware
                          of what Darwin really said, or like me do you think they simply bought
                          into the bastardized version of his work because they did not have the
                          intelligence to grasp the complexity or consistency?
                          >
                          > -- James V. Kohl
                          > Medical laboratory scientist
                          > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                          > Independent researcher
                          > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                          > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                          > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                          >
                          > On 5/1/2013 12:23 PM, Steve Corsini wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis?
                          > >
                          > > See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
                          > >
                          > > Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral
                          Faculties
                          >
                          > =========================================
                          >
                          > On 5/1/2013 1:48 PM, Stan Franklin wrote:
                          > >
                          > > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching
                          Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                          > >
                          > > Stan
                          > OK, let's be clear then. For some reason I have not made that point in
                          my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.
                          > And I think that reason is ignorance of extant literature that most
                          people away from this group have integrated into their opinions about
                          adaptive evolution.
                          >
                          > -- James V. Kohl
                          > Medical laboratory scientist
                          > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                          > Independent researcher
                          > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                          > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                          > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                          >
                        • james kohl
                          From: hibbsa Jim - but how would you explain the genetic harnessing of fire by grasses, as part of a successful strategy of supplanting
                          Message 13 of 19 , May 2, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: hibbsa
                            Jim - but how would you explain the genetic harnessing of fire by

                            grasses, as part of a successful strategy of supplanting forests?

                            Just give a straight and direct answer to this specific problem old boy.

                            JK: The straight and direct answer is that I would never attempt to answer such a foolish question involving the ability of grasses to genetically harness fire. However, I might attempt to address a model in which mutations somehow enabled grasses to genetically harness fire. Is there a model for that?

                            > -- James V. Kohl
                            > Medical laboratory scientist
                            > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                            > Independent researcher
                            > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                            > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                            > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338



                            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, JVKohl wrote:
                            >
                            > Excerpted from below: Fire. It's a great source of the feedback
                            > mechanisms that would have been necessary to drive human evolution
                            >
                            > The feedback mechanisms that drive adaptive evolution of the human
                            brain
                            > and behavior are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Why is
                            > this not clear? Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with
                            > reproduction .
                            > This isn't simply the case with vertebrates, it's the same with
                            species
                            > from microbes to man. Feedback between Population and Evolutionary
                            > Dynamics Determines the Fate of Social Microbial Populations.
                            > See also:
                            > Pheromone-Induced Morphogenesis Improves Osmoadaptation Capacity by
                            > Activating the HOG MAPK Pathway
                            >
                            >
                            > Does the level of ignorance here seem to anyone else to be increasing
                            > against the flow of information from virtually every scientific source
                            > and from every different discipline I have integrated into my model?
                            How
                            > can anyone explain that phenomenon? Are random mutations causes the
                            > brains of evolutionary theorists to regress to a more primitive state
                            as
                            > occurs with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution
                            > and eye regression in cave fish?
                            >
                            >
                            > --
                            > James V. Kohl
                            > Medical laboratory scientist
                            > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                            > Independent researcher
                            > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                            > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                            > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                            >
                            > =================================
                            >
                            > Steve,
                            >
                            > Why not just cite the part that states "...and by the aid of fire
                            cooks food otherwise indigestible." In my model, that's the
                            nutrient-dependent part of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
                            adaptive evolution. Is there a part that tells us how mutations are
                            involved in adaptive evolution?
                            >
                            > Do you realize you just cited the chapter in which Darwin repeatedly
                            mentions his 'conditons of existence' / conditions for life, which we
                            now know are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled?
                            >
                            > • … changed conditions of life are of the highest importance
                            in causing variability, both by acting directly on the organisation, and
                            indirectly by affecting the reproductive system … (author‟s
                            italics)" and "it is generally acknowledged that all organic
                            beings have been formed on two great laws – „Unity of
                            Type‟ and the „Conditions of Existence‟ … in fact
                            the law of the `Conditions of Existence' is the higher law, as
                            it includes, through the inheritance of former variations and
                            adaptations, that of Unity of Type" (Origin, Chapters 5 & 6, 6th
                            edition). -- from Marsh (2011)
                            >
                            > Do you think that most evolutionary theorists are even minimally aware
                            of what Darwin really said, or like me do you think they simply bought
                            into the bastardized version of his work because they did not have the
                            intelligence to grasp the complexity or consistency?
                            >
                            > -- James V. Kohl
                            > Medical laboratory scientist
                            > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                            > Independent researcher
                            > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                            > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                            > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                            >
                            > On 5/1/2013 12:23 PM, Steve Corsini wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis?
                            > >
                            > > See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
                            > >
                            > > Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral
                            Faculties
                            >
                            > =========================================
                            >
                            > On 5/1/2013 1:48 PM, Stan Franklin wrote:
                            > >
                            > > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching
                            Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                            > >
                            > > Stan
                            > OK, let's be clear then. For some reason I have not made that point in
                            my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.
                            > And I think that reason is ignorance of extant literature that most
                            people away from this group have integrated into their opinions about
                            adaptive evolution.
                            >

                            >

                          • james kohl
                            From: hibbsa Hi Stan - the importance of fire and cooking are obviously well understood. It s one of the first images school kids are
                            Message 14 of 19 , May 2, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              From: hibbsa
                              Hi Stan - the importance of fire and cooking are obviously well

                              understood. It's one of the first images school kids are taught.cavemen
                              conquering fire.

                              The distinctiveness I suppose was the intersection of grasses and
                              humans, fire being a key thread given the importance of fire in the
                              spread of grasses that saw their rise to dominance.

                              I wasn't seriously suggesting any of that was original of course....I
                              seriously recognize this sort of thing as low hanging fruit that will
                              have been thoroughly explored.

                              JK: That being the obvious case, do you think that the Aquatic Ape and the Scented Ape have been as thoroughly explored as the "Fire Ape?" I ask because if you combine the two ape stories, they support a model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution that can be combined with the "Fire Ape" story. The trouble is, I don't like to tell stories, I like to detail biological facts that clearly eliminate some of the more ridiculous stories being told -- like those that involve mutations theory in the adaptive evolution of the Aquatic Ape, Fire Ape, and Scented Ape.

                              James V. Kohl

                              Medical laboratory scientist







                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
                              >
                              > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009). Catching
                              Fire:
                              > How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                              >
                              > Stan
                              >
                              >
                              > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:56 AM, hibbsa hibbsa@... wrote:
                              >
                              > > **
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis? There should be, because the
                              > > evolutionary symbiosis of humans and grasses is one of the most
                              > > consistent and powerful of them all (i.e. grasses - seeds - flowers
                              -
                              > > crops - biocomplexity - etc). And of course the rise of grasses to
                              > > global dominance is a story of the genetic harnessing of the power
                              of
                              > > fire. The world was dominated by forests, but grasses evolved an
                              > > ingenius mechanism involving, as I say, harnessing fire. Above
                              ground
                              > > grass evolved so as to maximize the chances of fire starting and
                              then
                              > > spreading. While below ground grass evolved so as to be able to
                              survive
                              > > any above ground fire, and simply regrow after the fire burns out.
                              More
                              > > so...the fire actually left the earths more fertile, for the grasses
                              to
                              > > regrow stronger than before.
                              > >
                              > > Not so the trees...the fires burned them away making space for the
                              > > grasses. This would have been the reality facing the apes during the
                              > > ages that saw their forest homes replaced by savannah grasslands.
                              But
                              > > the fact that fire was actually a component of an evolutionary
                              strategy,
                              > > meant that the occurence of fire was immensely
                              predictable....correlated
                              > > with conditions on the ground, conditions preceding the fire were
                              always
                              > > similar, conditions following the fire always similar. The
                              relationship
                              > > of fire to wind always there. Fire to rain.
                              > >
                              > > The process of understanding fire presents an unending challenge
                              that
                              > > would have relentlessly drawn the pre-human mind in the direct of
                              > > objective curiousity in the elements and the relatedness of things.
                              The
                              > > first apes to master the behaviour of wild fires sufficiently to be
                              able
                              > > to walk right up to a fire from behind the wind and pick up the cool
                              end
                              > > of a burning stick, would have immediately distinguished themselves
                              from
                              > > their competitors, driving them terrified back into the forests,
                              away
                              > > from the Fire-Ape.
                              > >
                              > > Fire. It's a great source of the feedback mechanisms that would have
                              > > been necessary to drive human evolution. Cooking immediately allowed
                              our
                              > > intestines to become much smaller and less energy greedy. Allowing
                              that
                              > > surplus of energy to be redirected in the direction of mental
                              processing
                              > > of the wonders and mysteries still outstaning about fire. Fire
                              provides
                              > > a massive evolutionary pressure, because of the huge and instant
                              > > advantages to any new command of fire. True for individuals and
                              groups
                              > > alike.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Stan Franklin wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > The message below seem an especially poor account of the aquatic
                              ape
                              > > > hypothesis.
                              > > >
                              > > > Recent work brings mainstream anthropologists aboard to some
                              extent.
                              > > Please
                              > > > see: Wrangham, R., Cheney, D., Seyfarth, R., & Sarmiento, E.
                              (2009).
                              > > > Shallow-Water Habitats as Sources of Fallback Foods for Hominins.
                              > > AMERICAN
                              > > > JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, 140, 630–642.
                              > > >
                              > > > Stan
                              > > >
                              > > > --
                              > > > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
                              > > > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
                              > > > Institute for Intelligent Systems
                              > > > FedEx Institute of Technology
                              > > > The University of Memphis
                              > > > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
                              > > > 901-678-1341
                              > > >
                              > > > lab
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --
                              > Stan Franklin Professor Computer Science
                              > W. Harry Feinstone Interdisciplinary Research Professor
                              > Institute for Intelligent Systems
                              > FedEx Institute of Technology
                              > The University of Memphis
                              > Memphis, TN 38152 USA
                              > 901-678-1341
                              >
                              > lab
                              >

                            • hibbsa
                              ... answer such ... harness fire. ... enabled ... So then do you (a) deny that fire was the essential component for why grasses rose to dominance? or (b)
                              Message 15 of 19 , May 2, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > JK: The straight and direct answer is that I would never attempt to
                                answer such
                                > a foolish question involving the ability of grasses to genetically
                                harness fire.
                                > However, I might attempt to address a model in which mutations somehow
                                enabled
                                > grasses to genetically harness fire. Is there a model for that?


                                So then do you (a) deny that fire was the essential component for why
                                grasses rose to dominance? or (b) accept this is the case but call it a
                                lucky intersection of random phenomena?

                                If (b) then can you explain the distinction between that, and an
                                instance of natural selection involving genetic manifestations such as
                                the ability of grasses to survive fires and simply regrow in their wake,
                                given fires actually occured and given grasses rose to dominance as a
                                result, as a randomly assigned selective benefit for those traits?

                                Or did the traits come about as the result of a non-random process
                                involving nutrient gradients or any other mechanism?

                                Or do you have another non-random description for what actually occured?




                                --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:
                                >
                                > From: hibbsa hibbsa@...
                                >
                                > Jim - but how would you explain the genetic harnessing of fire by
                                >
                                > grasses, as part of a successful strategy of supplanting forests?
                                >
                                > Just give a straight and direct answer to this specific problem old
                                boy.
                                > JK: The straight and direct answer is that I would never attempt to
                                answer such
                                > a foolish question involving the ability of grasses to genetically
                                harness fire.
                                > However, I might attempt to address a model in which mutations somehow
                                enabled
                                > grasses to genetically harness fire. Is there a model for that?
                                >
                                > > -- James V. Kohl
                                > > Medical laboratory scientist
                                > > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                                > > Independent researcher
                                > > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                                > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                > > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, JVKohl wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Excerpted from below: Fire. It's a great source of the feedback
                                > > mechanisms that would have been necessary to drive human evolution
                                > >
                                > > The feedback mechanisms that drive adaptive evolution of the human
                                > brain
                                > > and behavior are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Why is
                                > > this not clear? Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling
                                with
                                > > reproduction .
                                > > This isn't simply the case with vertebrates, it's the same with
                                > species
                                > > from microbes to man. Feedback between Population and Evolutionary
                                > > Dynamics Determines the Fate of Social Microbial Populations.
                                > > See also:
                                > > Pheromone-Induced Morphogenesis Improves Osmoadaptation Capacity by
                                > > Activating the HOG MAPK Pathway
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Does the level of ignorance here seem to anyone else to be
                                increasing
                                > > against the flow of information from virtually every scientific
                                source
                                > > and from every different discipline I have integrated into my model?
                                > How
                                > > can anyone explain that phenomenon? Are random mutations causes the
                                > > brains of evolutionary theorists to regress to a more primitive
                                state
                                > as
                                > > occurs with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive
                                evolution
                                > > and eye regression in cave fish?
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --
                                > > James V. Kohl
                                > > Medical laboratory scientist
                                > > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                                > > Independent researcher
                                > > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                                > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                > > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                                > >
                                > > =================================
                                > >
                                > > Steve,
                                > >
                                > > Why not just cite the part that states "...and by the aid of fire
                                > cooks food otherwise indigestible." In my model, that's the
                                > nutrient-dependent part of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
                                > adaptive evolution. Is there a part that tells us how mutations are
                                > involved in adaptive evolution?
                                > >
                                > > Do you realize you just cited the chapter in which Darwin repeatedly
                                > mentions his 'conditons of existence' / conditions for life, which we
                                > now know are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled?
                                > >
                                > > • … changed conditions of life are of the highest
                                importance
                                > in causing variability, both by acting directly on the organisation,
                                and
                                > indirectly by affecting the reproductive system …
                                (author‟s
                                > italics)" and "it is generally acknowledged that all organic
                                > beings have been formed on two great laws â€" „Unity of
                                > Type‟ and the „Conditions of Existence‟
                                … in fact
                                > the law of the `Conditions of Existence' is the higher law, as
                                > it includes, through the inheritance of former variations and
                                > adaptations, that of Unity of Type" (Origin, Chapters 5 & 6, 6th
                                > edition). -- from Marsh (2011)
                                > >
                                > > Do you think that most evolutionary theorists are even minimally
                                aware
                                > of what Darwin really said, or like me do you think they simply bought
                                > into the bastardized version of his work because they did not have the
                                > intelligence to grasp the complexity or consistency?
                                > >
                                > > -- James V. Kohl
                                > > Medical laboratory scientist
                                > > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                                > > Independent researcher
                                > > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                                > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                > > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                                > >
                                > > On 5/1/2013 12:23 PM, Steve Corsini wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis?
                                > > >
                                > > > See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
                                > > >
                                > > > Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral
                                > Faculties
                                > >
                                > > =========================================
                                > >
                                > > On 5/1/2013 1:48 PM, Stan Franklin wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009).
                                Catching
                                > Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                                > > >
                                > > > Stan
                                > > OK, let's be clear then. For some reason I have not made that point
                                in
                                > my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive
                                evolution.
                                > > And I think that reason is ignorance of extant literature that most
                                > people away from this group have integrated into their opinions about
                                > adaptive evolution.
                                > >
                                >
                                > >
                                >
                              • james kohl
                                From: hibbsa ... answer such ... harness fire. ... enabled ... So then do you (a) deny that fire was the essential component for why grasses
                                Message 16 of 19 , May 2, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  From: hibbsa
                                  JK: The straight and direct answer is that I would never attempt to

                                  answer such

                                  > a foolish question involving the ability of grasses to genetically
                                  harness fire.
                                  > However, I might attempt to address a model in which mutations somehow
                                  enabled
                                  > grasses to genetically harness fire. Is there a model for that?

                                  So then do you (a) deny that fire was the essential component for why
                                  grasses rose to dominance? or (b) accept this is the case but call it a
                                  lucky intersection of random phenomena?

                                  JK: I deny that there is any point whatsoever to such questions in the context of evolutionary psychology. Please place the rise of grasses to dominance is whatever context you wish to discuss it. Do you want to place it in the context of random mutations theory, for example?

                                  If (b) then can you explain the distinction between that, and an
                                  instance of natural selection involving genetic manifestations such as
                                  the ability of grasses to survive fires and simply regrow in their wake,
                                  given fires actually occured and given grasses rose to dominance as a
                                  result, as a randomly assigned selective benefit for those traits?

                                  JK: The problem for me is that I have never considered thinking about this, must less explaining such distinctions.

                                  Or did the traits come about as the result of a non-random process involving nutrient gradients or any other mechanism?

                                  Or do you have another non-random description for what actually occured?

                                  JK: I have a description for what you are trying to involve me in: it's� nonsensical "foolishness." Offer me a theory of how mutations randomly caused something to occur if that's what you think might have happened.

                                  James V. Kohl
                                  Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                                  Independent researcher
                                  Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.

                                  --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:
                                  >
                                  > From: hibbsa hibbsa@...
                                  >
                                  > Jim - but how would you explain the genetic harnessing of fire by
                                  >
                                  > grasses, as part of a successful strategy of supplanting forests?
                                  >
                                  > Just give a straight and direct answer to this specific problem old
                                  boy.
                                  > JK: The straight and direct answer is that I would never attempt to
                                  answer such
                                  > a foolish question involving the ability of grasses to genetically
                                  harness fire.
                                  > However, I might attempt to address a model in which mutations somehow
                                  enabled
                                  > grasses to genetically harness fire. Is there a model for that?
                                  >
                                  > > -- James V. Kohl
                                  > > Medical laboratory scientist
                                  > > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                                  > > Independent researcher
                                  > > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                                  > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                  > > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, JVKohl wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Excerpted from below: Fire. It's a great source of the feedback
                                  > > mechanisms that would have been necessary to drive human evolution
                                  > >
                                  > > The feedback mechanisms that drive adaptive evolution of the human
                                  > brain
                                  > > and behavior are nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled. Why is
                                  > > this not clear? Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling
                                  with
                                  > > reproduction .
                                  > > This isn't simply the case with vertebrates, it's the same with
                                  > species
                                  > > from microbes to man. Feedback between Population and Evolutionary
                                  > > Dynamics Determines the Fate of Social Microbial Populations.
                                  > > See also:
                                  > > Pheromone-Induced Morphogenesis Improves Osmoadaptation Capacity by
                                  > > Activating the HOG MAPK Pathway
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Does the level of ignorance here seem to anyone else to be
                                  increasing
                                  > > against the flow of information from virtually every scientific
                                  source
                                  > > and from every different discipline I have integrated into my model?
                                  > How
                                  > > can anyone explain that phenomenon? Are random mutations causes the
                                  > > brains of evolutionary theorists to regress to a more primitive
                                  state
                                  > as
                                  > > occurs with nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive
                                  evolution
                                  > > and eye regression in cave fish?
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --
                                  > > James V. Kohl
                                  > > Medical laboratory scientist
                                  > > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                                  > > Independent researcher
                                  > > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                                  > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                  > > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                                  > >
                                  > > =================================
                                  > >
                                  > > Steve,
                                  > >
                                  > > Why not just cite the part that states "...and by the aid of fire
                                  > cooks food otherwise indigestible." In my model, that's the
                                  > nutrient-dependent part of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled
                                  > adaptive evolution. Is there a part that tells us how mutations are
                                  > involved in adaptive evolution?
                                  > >
                                  > > Do you realize you just cited the chapter in which Darwin repeatedly
                                  > mentions his 'conditons of existence' / conditions for life, which we
                                  > now know are obviously nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled?
                                  > >
                                  > > • … changed conditions of life are of the highest
                                  importance
                                  > in causing variability, both by acting directly on the organisation,
                                  and
                                  > indirectly by affecting the reproductive system …
                                  (author‟s
                                  > italics)" and "it is generally acknowledged that all organic
                                  > beings have been formed on two great laws â€" „Unity of
                                  > Type‟ and the „Conditions of Existence‟
                                  … in fact
                                  > the law of the `Conditions of Existence' is the higher law, as
                                  > it includes, through the inheritance of former variations and
                                  > adaptations, that of Unity of Type" (Origin, Chapters 5 & 6, 6th
                                  > edition). -- from Marsh (2011)
                                  > >
                                  > > Do you think that most evolutionary theorists are even minimally
                                  aware
                                  > of what Darwin really said, or like me do you think they simply bought
                                  > into the bastardized version of his work because they did not have the
                                  > intelligence to grasp the complexity or consistency?
                                  > >
                                  > > -- James V. Kohl
                                  > > Medical laboratory scientist
                                  > > ASCP AMT ASCLS
                                  > > Independent researcher
                                  > > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors...
                                  > > Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                  > > http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338
                                  > >
                                  > > On 5/1/2013 12:23 PM, Steve Corsini wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Is there a Fire-Ape hypothesis?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > See: Charles Darwin The Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral
                                  > Faculties
                                  > >
                                  > > =========================================
                                  > >
                                  > > On 5/1/2013 1:48 PM, Stan Franklin wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > There's a book that makes this point: Wrangham, R. (2009).
                                  Catching
                                  > Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human Basic Books.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Stan
                                  > > OK, let's be clear then. For some reason I have not made that point
                                  in
                                  > my model of nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive
                                  evolution.
                                  > > And I think that reason is ignorance of extant literature that most
                                  > people away from this group have integrated into their opinions about
                                  > adaptive evolution.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  >

                                • hibbsa
                                  Really Jim? You think it s crazy and stupid to think a biological system could evolve to harness the occurence of fire? What about the even crazier idea that a
                                  Message 17 of 19 , May 5, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Really Jim? You think it's crazy and stupid to think a biological system
                                    could evolve to harness the occurence of fire? What about the even
                                    crazier idea that a biological system could evolve to harness photons
                                    from outer space? What would be the nutrient dependent pheromone
                                    controlled adaptive evolution leading to the harnessing of photons from
                                    outer space?


                                    --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, james kohl wrote:
                                    >
                                    > From: hibbsa hibbsa@...
                                    >
                                    > > JK: The straight and direct answer is that I would never attempt to
                                    >
                                    > answer such
                                    > > a foolish question involving the ability of grasses to genetically
                                    > harness fire.
                                    > > However, I might attempt to address a model in which mutations
                                    somehow
                                    > enabled
                                    > > grasses to genetically harness fire. Is there a model for that?
                                    >
                                    > So then do you (a) deny that fire was the essential component for why
                                    > grasses rose to dominance? or (b) accept this is the case but call it
                                    a
                                    > lucky intersection of random phenomena?
                                    > JK: I deny that there is any point whatsoever to such questions in the
                                    context
                                    > of evolutionary psychology. Please place the rise of grasses to
                                    dominance is
                                    > whatever context you wish to discuss it. Do you want to place it in
                                    the context
                                    > of random mutations theory, for example?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > If (b) then can you explain the distinction between that, and an
                                    > instance of natural selection involving genetic manifestations such as
                                    > the ability of grasses to survive fires and simply regrow in their
                                    wake,
                                    > given fires actually occured and given grasses rose to dominance as a
                                    > result, as a randomly assigned selective benefit for those traits?
                                    > JK: The problem for me is that I have never considered thinking about
                                    this, must
                                    > less explaining such distinctions.
                                    >
                                    > Or did the traits come about as the result of a non-random process
                                    involving
                                    > nutrient gradients or any other mechanism?
                                    >
                                    > Or do you have another non-random description for what actually
                                    occured?
                                    > JK: I have a description for what you are trying to involve me in:
                                    it's
                                    > nonsensical "foolishness." Offer me a theory of how mutations randomly
                                    caused
                                    > something to occur if that's what you think might have happened.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > James V. Kohl
                                    > Medical laboratory scientist (ASCP)
                                    > Independent researcher
                                    > Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic
                                    influences on the
                                    > socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective
                                    Neuroscience &
                                    > Psychology, 2: 17338.
                                    >
                                    <Snip>
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.