Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat

[panacea]

Ok, if as van and co suggest, we ignore all references to technology and focus on modern humans,  not early hominids, then, obviously, East Asians are best suited for a colder climate, Caucasians for a more temperate climate, and SubSaharan Africans for a hotter climate. Seems awfully straightforward, given the various different physical adaptations of the three groups.

It's impossible to ignore technology because east asians and caucasians especially rely on technology to survive in those climates. The only significant adaptation those three groups have is adaption to sunlight exposure intensity, not temperature or the various other climactic differences. The obvious truth still stands that all modern humans the world over are better adapted to live nakedly and without technology in temperate or hot (but still close to bodies of water and tree shade) climates, not cold ones. This is without any technology whatsoever. That lets us know what our bodies are actually adapted to, regardless of where we can comfortably survive with technological aid or uncomfortably survive without technological aid. Where can thrive, be comfortable, with our naked bodies - that's our adapted natural habitat. See what common sense looks like?

[TylerDurden]

It's impossible to ignore technology because east asians and caucasians especially rely on technology to survive in those climates. The only significant adaptation those three groups have is adaption to sunlight exposure intensity, not temperature or the various other climactic differences. The obvious truth still stands that all modern humans the world over are better adapted to live nakedly and without technology in temperate or hot (but still close to bodies of water and tree shade) climates, not cold ones. This is without any technology whatsoever. That lets us know what our bodies are actually adapted to, regardless of where we can comfortably survive with technological aid or uncomfortably survive without technological aid. Where can thrive, be comfortable, with our naked bodies - that's our adapted natural habitat. See what common sense looks like?

At last, you have, very grudgingly admitted that some humans might be better adapted to temperate climates than hot ones. Well, that is at least a start.

[Brad462]

Good, can we have a cease-fire now? 

[TylerDurden]

Lol Tyler, from the same wikipedia page and paragraph you posted:



Talk about having an egg on your face.

The requirement for wild boars to survive is to be able to wallow, it's not a "I like to do it thing." They can and will die off eventually if they never do it. You're simply wrong. It's a requirement for survival. Boars need to wallow/live part of their lives submerged in water (or water in the form of muddy water) to survive, just like humans. There are no humans that live without wallowing/dousing/living without routinely applying water on the surface of their skin, besides many animals like wolves who can.

This is particularly short-sighted an opinion  given that it is already known that pigs have too few sweat glands so need to wallow in mud or water  primarily  in order to cool off. They also use mud as sunscreen and it is claimed they may use it for scenting. This does by no means mean they are adapted to aquatic or semi-aquatic  environments. Similiarly, the fact that humans and many other land mammals may routinely wash themselves in water or swim does not make them adapted to an aquatic environment, let alone a semi-aquatic one. Besides, what about  those humans who have adapted better  to desert environments than aquatic ones?
Here's more detailed  stuff debunking the aquatic ape theory. Not difficult to find since the Aquatic Ape theory is long discredited due to having major flaws in it:-
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1991/did-humans-descend-from-aquatic-apes

So, in conclusion, unequivocally, humans depend on water, not just for drinking but for the exterior of our bodies, which defines us as semiaquatic (relying on bodies of water to exist), and our bodies reflect that with our evolutionary adaptations of subcutaneous fat, voluntary breathing, natural breath-hold instincts of children, relatively naked skin, etc.

All these silly claims on behalf of the Aquatic Ape theory have already been extensively and throughly  debunked  in the previous link I gave:-

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1991/did-humans-descend-from-aquatic-apes

[TylerDurden]

If it flooded, the wood would be the least of their problems, but alas they lived near cape horn so it wasn't a problem (use your brain).
As about rain, they had rock shelters, language, boats, and fire, but weren't smart enough to protect the wood from rain? Are you kidding me? They had at least as much intelligence as you, and even you could understand the concept of protecting your firewood from rain.

The point re storms sometimes soaking wood is perfectly valid. I mean, it makes sense that sometimes storms might soak a wood-supply(this has happened to me at times in my Italian home, for example, despite protection from rain, as storms, amazingly, can actually blow down roofs at times etc.). Whatever the case, it is clear that the Yaghans could not have had direct access to fires while hunting or foraging so they were quite clearly able to survive quite well during those times minus fire.

[TylerDurden]

It's impossible to ignore technology because east asians and caucasians especially rely on technology to survive in those climates. The only significant adaptation those three groups have is adaption to sunlight exposure intensity, not temperature or the various other climactic differences. The obvious truth still stands that all modern humans the world over are better adapted to live nakedly and without technology in temperate or hot (but still close to bodies of water and tree shade) climates, not cold ones. This is without any technology whatsoever. That lets us know what our bodies are actually adapted to, regardless of where we can comfortably survive with technological aid or uncomfortably survive without technological aid. Where can thrive, be comfortable, with our naked bodies - that's our adapted natural habitat. See what common sense looks like?

Truly absurd. The adaptation of those 3 ethnic groups is, of course, much more than just due to  skin-colour/  sunlight exposure intensity. For example, East Africans have long, elongated limbs in order to better withstand the heat. East Asians, by contrast, have no facial hair which helps plus short noses, short limbs, flat faces, epicanthic fold etc., all of which help to adapt to the cold. Indeed, East Asians are supposed to be best adapted to cold desert climates from which they  first originated as early hominids. Since Caucasians usually fall between subSaharan Africans and East Asians in almost every category, it makes more sense to assume that Caucasians evolved in a temperate climate.

[FRANCIS HOWARD BOND]

All right I will admit I roll naked in the snow in my back garden.   I am glad you do not know my address or I might find I had an audience!!!   Freeeeezing Frank!

[panacea]

At last, you have, very grudgingly admitted that some humans might be better adapted to temperate climates than hot ones. Well, that is at least a start.

It's actually a completely different thing than a cold climate, lol. My opinion on this hasn't shifted in years, your delusions of me admitting something as if I ever said anything to the contrary is truly disturbing. Do you have any recollection of what we're debating?

This is particularly short-sighted an opinion  given that it is already known that pigs have too few sweat glands so need to wallow in mud or water  primarily  in order to cool off. They also use mud as sunscreen and it is claimed they may use it for scenting. This does by no means mean they are adapted to aquatic or semi-aquatic  environments. Similiarly, the fact that humans and many other land mammals may routinely wash themselves in water or swim does not make them adapted to an aquatic environment, let alone a semi-aquatic one. Besides, what about  those humans who have adapted better  to desert environments than aquatic ones?
Here's more detailed  stuff debunking the aquatic ape theory. Not difficult to find since the Aquatic Ape theory is long discredited due to having major flaws in it:-

First of all, did you wipe that egg off your face yet, because in case you missed it, in your routine ability to google something in 5 seconds and post a link, you posted something that contradicts your entire point. Just wanted to make sure that sank in. By the way, pigs/boars also need wallowing to cleanse themselves of parasites/insects . This is just how pigs/boars are, you're the one who brought it up attempting to use them as an example of an animal with subcutaneous fat that doesn't routinely submerge in water (or mud, which is soil+water, I made it easy on your brain, see?) There is simply no other reason to be relatively naked and have subcutaneous fat, do you see that now? Or have you found an animal which is an exception? Really, just answer, because you keep avoiding these great milestones your mind must be grudgingly admitting to, yet you skip them every time to save face.

Yes, our skin (external part of our body) is adapted to water, that is exactly what wallowing/swimming indicate. Do you see that now? Don't dodge the question now Tyler (;

I realize you have an irrational fear of the term "semi aquatic", as all defensive people get this way when they are wrong and not humble enough to admit it. So let's see if you can clearly state for the record that you now see that humans require water routinely applied on the surface of their skin, like all other above-ground animals with relatively naked skin and subcutaneous fat, so that we, humans, are typical in that the skin of our bodies relies on touching water. Whether or not your ignorant mind understands the connection that our natural behavior seeks out water particles so that they can routinely come into contact with our skin (all over) makes us semiaquatic is not my problem. I can't teach you common sense.

As about the adaptations of the 3 ethnic groups, I said the only dramatic difference is skin color - elongated limbs or slightly stubbier noses/body builds don't equate to major heat losses/gains. At least not anything in comparison to skin color due to sunlight intensity in those varying areas.

What you seem to fail to comprehend is the striking similarities between all three groups - all three have extremely fat infants for example, with lots of white fat (which is the worst form for insulation and body heat, but the best form for buoyancy). I know that's a shocker to you because you're wondering how babies are floating with wet cloths being scrubbed on them. There must have been some evolutionary reason though, think hard Tyler!

By the way, hilariously, the two links you've posted as of yet to "discredit" the aquatic ape theory is one website created by a single man who personally attacks elaine morgan/AAH proponents more than he pays attention to the theory itself and the other is by cecil adams which you can read all about what kind of character he is, in his own words here, http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil or maybe click the link "Ask the master" on his website.

Tyler, you're a joke. I'm done debating with you out of pity for you, everyone here can clearly figure it out for themselves with the information I've given and some light reading. Have fun believing your right but actually being wrong for the rest of your life, just because you have know-it-all syndrome (when really we both know that's a look-up-contrary-information-on-google-read-it-for-5-secs-then-post-it-as-if-you-read-it-before-today syndrome)

[van]

Ok Tyler, he said he's done.   Now, what else can we discover?  How about, why did humans venture into areas that weren't optimal for them,, that's assuming they knew or would soon find out that traveling too north or too far to the south, and to go stark raving naked was going to cause them to be looking for their gonads?   But wait a minute,  women's nipples get hard in the cold, don't they?  Maybe that's why?  No that's silly, because women would just turn around and go back and the men would follow.  Hmm.  I wonder why then?   

[eveheart]

How about, why did humans venture into areas that weren't optimal for them

This question makes me think about what Jack Kruse says about the physiological changes when someone takes to cold therapy. He says, among other changes, the body lays down more brown adipose tissue, especially when the body is cold and in ketosis. He uses the term cold thermogenesis - thermogenesis meaning "the production of heat, especially in a human or animal body." You might as well think of BAT as a human's version of blubber, but it not only insulates, it up-regulates the metabolism.

Babies have a lot of BAT, which accounts for how much less clothing they need to keep their body surface warm.

[panacea]

The adult cold-exposure brown fat adaptation happens in many mammals, not just humans, however it is one of the most energy-expensive type of tissue you could store/generate, as merely 50 grams of it can use 20% of your normal daily intake. From an evolutionary perspective, it only makes sense to have brown fat if you are a hibernating animal, or are frequently cold and have access to a lot of food to sustain its energy cost (much more food than you would typically find on land without speed and tools, which you wont have if you have a lot of fat and are naked). However such food is abundant near bodies of water. Brown fat is still mostly useful for infants though, although we retain this ability through adulthood.

[goodsamaritan]

Here is my 2 cents about the search for warmth in my country (Philippines) where I am involved in pregnancy care, birthing and child care.

The midwives are obsessed with warmth.

They do not like it when the pregnant woman's back and shoulders are exposed.

The midwives have it easier when the pregnant woman is muslim and she is wrapped all over.

The midwife wants mornings of warm tea of ginger every day.

When a child is born, the very first measure of importance is to wrap the child in warm clothing, to give the child body warmth, especially of the mother.

Babies should always be kept warm... wrapped... cold is bad.  Babies are attached to mommy in the first months of life while awake and while asleep.  No we do not ever think of putting baby in a crib in a different room with a baby sound monitor... no freaking way.

Yet I live in this tropical climate https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Manila+weather&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Currently says 29 Celcius / 85 F and 68% humidity

Water births are superior to dry births... very hot water is an anasthetic so the woman feels no pain in the hot water.  All she needs to do is push.  At the same time her vagina is perfect, no tears, when doing water births.

I'd follow babies' needs... they have no politics and no "learned" hypotheses in them.

[van]

 I don't know your experiences,  but have know several woman who have switched over from cooked carb heavy diet to raw and their body temps have increased, as in warmer hands and feet and less complaining about cold weather.    One's diet may have a lot to do with environmental temperature preferences and needs.     Totally agree on the warm water birthing.   My daughter was born that way. 

[Brad462]

Are we capable of living in peace with our surroundings?  Forget the past; the entire world is on the verge of an ELE by the looks of things. 

[goodsamaritan]

Are we capable of living in peace with our surroundings?  Forget the past; the entire world is on the verge of an ELE by the looks of things. 

I am looking forward to humans going out in space and colonizing other planets. 

But this is off - topic.

---------

Back on topic... I think Van and I have gone in and looked at the angle of BIRTHING.  Where is it conducive for our human females to give birth?  Where would they be more prolific?  Where would they get maximum nutrition?  For themselves and for their babies?

[TylerDurden]

Are we capable of living in peace with our surroundings?  Forget the past; the entire world is on the verge of an ELE by the looks of things. 

There is a fascinating theory called "The Great Filter Theory". The idea is that the further a species gets, the more likely it will encounter an extinction level event. This theory explains why no interstellar aliens have ever reached our planet, as it suggests that other species before us have become extinct as their technology-levels progressed. There are so many ways to become extinct, some not so obvious. For example, universal  immortality  would lead to a collapse in the birth-rate to near-zero levels.  Plus, we might easily wipe out the Earth´s ecosystem via continued pollution and so on....

[TylerDurden]

It's actually a completely different thing than a cold climate, lol. My opinion on this hasn't shifted in years, your delusions of me admitting something as if I ever said anything to the contrary is truly disturbing.

You do not understand quite what happened. Earlier, you had stated with fanatical certainty that all humans originated from a warm climate, no ifs or buts. Now that you finally accept some humans have temperate climates as their natural/optimal climate, that is an amazing admission from someone  who is otherwise such a fanatic. I'm impressed. Maybe in a decade or so you may be able to come to accept that some humans are best adapted to colder climates,  who knows?

I realize you have an irrational fear of the term "semi aquatic", as all defensive people get this way when they are wrong and not humble enough to admit it. So let's see if you can clearly state for the record that you now see that humans require water routinely applied on the surface of their skin, like all other above-ground animals with relatively naked skin and subcutaneous fat, so that we, humans, are typical in that the skin of our bodies relies on touching water. Whether or not your ignorant mind understands the connection that our natural behavior seeks out water particles so that they can routinely come into contact with our skin (all over) makes us semiaquatic is not my problem. I can't teach you common sense.

Sadly, you are completely lacking in common-sense if you think that an animal has to be adapted to water in order to be able to splash itself with water every so often. What you fail to grasp is that it was only until recently that humans had regular access to showers or baths. Before that point, many humans, such as in deserts,  would be  very unlikely to be able to wash themselves at all.

As about the adaptations of the 3 ethnic groups, I said the only dramatic difference is skin color - elongated limbs or slightly stubbier noses/body builds don't equate to major heat losses/gains. At least not anything in comparison to skin color due to sunlight intensity in those varying areas.

Obviously this is nonsense. if skin color was all that effective at reducing or increasing heat levels as you claim, then the multitude  other cold-/hot- adaptations would not have been needed. Read up on Allen's rule which shows that humans increase in mass when originating from cold climates with those from hotter climates developing elongated limbs etc. as the greater surface area helps dissipate heat better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen's_rule

What you seem to fail to comprehend is the striking similarities between all three groups - all three have extremely fat infants for example, with lots of white fat (which is the worst form for insulation and body heat, but the best form for buoyancy). I know that's a shocker to you because you're wondering how babies are floating with wet cloths being scrubbed on them. There must have been some evolutionary reason though, think hard Tyler!

  Extra fat in humans has been ascribed to sexual selection pressures, nothing to do with water.

By the way, hilariously, the two links you've posted as of yet to "discredit" the aquatic ape theory is one website created by a single man who personally attacks elaine morgan/AAH proponents more than he pays attention to the theory itself and the other is by cecil adams which you can read all about what kind of character he is, in his own words here, http://www.straightdope.com/pages/faq/cecil or maybe click the link "Ask the master" on his website.

Ultimately, it really does not matter what anti-Aquatic Ape theory sites I cite. The Aquatic Ape theory has been widely discredited by palaeoanthrologists and, so far, has produced no credible evidence to support it, just guesses that are easily explained via other evolutionary explanations. Plus, there are so many differences between humans and aquatic animals that the Aquatic Ape theory cannot explain away.

Incidentally, though, you have the famous David Attenborough on your side now. He is, needless to say,  not  a genuine scientist, but I am sure he will boost this kooky theory in terms of popularity for a few more years before it dies a well-deserved death.

[goodsamaritan]

How about this human need for Magnesium?
Why many people are magnesium deficient? And you cannot get enough magnesium via diet. You get magnesium through your skin. Thus the effectivity of rubbing magnesium oil daily in some people.

Humans get enough magnesium if they live beside the ocean, walk on the beach daily, swim in the ocean daily.

What do the anti aquatic ape have to answer for this magnesium issue?

[van]

Does that mean all the native american indians who lived inland in the US were mg. deficient?   I am assuming they were not rubbing mg. oil on their skin.

[TylerDurden]

Any modern magnesium deficiency is easy to explain. If the body absorbs too much calcium in the diet, such as via dairy, and not enough magnesium, then magnesium-intake into the body is blocked, and magnesium-deficiency occurs:-

http://www.rense.com/general87/magnes.htm

[nummi]

Any modern magnesium deficiency is easy to explain. If the body absorbs too much calcium in the diet, such as via dairy, and not enough magnesium, then magnesium-intake into the body is blocked, and magnesium-deficiency occurs:-

http://www.rense.com/general87/magnes.htm

If too little magnesium is taken then it does not matter how much or little calcium you take, because you are taking too little magnesium already anyway! Basic logic, "common sense", c'mon now!

You say calcium intake is "high" but magnesium intake is too low and then calcium somehow inhibits magnesium that already is deficient? Get it? Basically what you said is magnesium intake already is low, but that doesn't yet matter because calcium has to come into play as well and inhibit the already deficient magnesium! There already was magnesium deficiency before calcium came into play!

Calcium intake does not block magnesium! Think objectively, analyze what is said objectively, and try to compare it to actual reality. Try to recognize nonsense as nonsense!

And holy fucking shit! I actually took a look at that text you provided. Recommended calcium intake 1000mg a day? Are you joking??? It is at least double that amount.
And It gets even worse... Optimal use perspective 750mg a day? That text you gave is garbage!
And magnesium need is not 270-400 mg, it is 1-2 grams!
Do you actually read through and think through the information you provide? It certainly seems you do not.

Just because somewhere is something written does not immediately mean it is true, you also have to verify the origin of that text, and then that one and so on. Otherwise, what are you doing?

Personally, my daily calcium intake is around 2 grams, magnesium intake around 1.5 grams.

Anyway... another thing to look at when considering magnesium and calcium need is that those minerals are also used for neutralizing many toxins of which there are more and more as time goes by. Also to heal the damage done by those toxins, which again takes more. Older times, our world was not polluted, so not as much was needed from this perspective as is now.

[TylerDurden]

Whether you like it or not, the calcium:magneisum ratio is a fact of life. Indeed, I once came across one guy on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group who experienced severe magnesium-deficiency because had been consuming too much calcium-rich dairy. His magnesium-intake had been sufficient, it was just because he had switched to consuming too much calcium via raw dairy that he developed magnesium-deficiency.

And I did not suggest that magnesium-intake of HGs or whatever was too low, merely suggesting that excessive calcium might block the uptake of magnesium, thus leading to magnesium-deficiency.

[eveheart]

Another major factor in dietary magnesium deficiency is magnesium depletion in the soils of agricultural fields. Crops are bred to do well in magnesium-deficient soil, so we are often not aware that the deficiency persists when we eat so-called magnesium-rich foods. Mineral depletion of agricultural fields affects many life-sustaining minerals. NPK  (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium) fertilizers mask the problem by encouraging robust crop growth in spite of mineral deficiencies. Bottom line: if the mineral is not in the soil, the plant cannot uptake that mineral.

[nummi]

Whether you like it or not, the calcium:magneisum ratio is a fact of life. Indeed, I once came across one guy on the rawpaleodiet yahoo group who experienced severe magnesium-deficiency because had been consuming too much calcium-rich dairy. His magnesium-intake had been sufficient, it was just because he had switched to consuming too much calcium via raw dairy that he developed magnesium-deficiency.

And I did not suggest that magnesium-intake of HGs or whatever was too low, merely suggesting that excessive calcium might block the uptake of magnesium, thus leading to magnesium-deficiency.

This was not the aspect of your post I was referring to. Why would you not notice it?
You have anything else aside a "straw man" to provide?

You say you met one, but no details about how much magnesium he consumed. How did he know he was deficient in magnesium? You do notice the problem with such assertions, right? Now I don't care about "scientific" anything as I know science is mostly nonsense itself as it's founded on principles that don't accord actual reality, but I do care about actual objective logic and reasoning.
I do recognize nonsense. So no point nonsensing me.

You said excessive calcium might block magnesium uptake when magnesium already is deficient while talking about what causes magnesium deficiency! If this were true it would suggest further very obvious issues that simply make no sense at all.

-----------------------
Yes, soils are deficient, on top of toxins everywhere. Deficiency rather unavoidable if doesn't have an abundant source nearby, daily, in some form. A problem that also did not exist in the past in such extremes as now.
Plus many of the toxins in the environment are probably designed to make magnesium unavailable, by reacting with it and making compounds life cannot use easily if at all.

Starts sounding like those who want to rely on just "real food" are "crazy" as they will never get enough magnesium in our present world (nor some other nutrients). Except perhaps in some areas of the planet, like near not too polluted water.
Personally, for me it's impossible to get enough from just food (tried it, and not just magnesium, potassium and iodine as well). So I use MgCl2 daily, along other salts and stuff.

[TylerDurden]

To clarify, I had actually stated that if there was an excess of calcium, as long as magnesium-intake was much less than the calcium-intake, there  would be a magnesium-deficiency even if the magnesium-intake had been sufficient for health.

As for the person I mentioned, he had been on a rawpalaeodiet(low carb) for some time so must have been getting enough magnesium.