Aquatic Ape Theory! Oh the symmetry of it all! I love it! Now, while I realize that the theatre of the absurd demands aggressive anti-realism, I must confess that I still can’t swim.
(Why do I sense a set-up here?)
Evolutionary debates tend to get muddied up in the assumption that all genetic mutation (read: evolution) is purposive rather than accidental. 99.99999% of all genetic mutations do not survive for more than a few hours, and of the rest ‘survival of the fittest’ is a dream of random chance – the reality reads more like ‘survival of what survives.’ Which would be to say that ascribing individual parts of an organism to specific evolutionary causation would turn into one hell of a mess if applied synergistically.
In any case, as much as I hate falling back on the law of the excluded middle, either the hymen is explained by the Aquatic Ape (in which case we’re oddly back to Tupperware), or it isn’t (in which case . . . um . . . I guess it’s Tupperware again . . .)
I have some problems with the Aquatic Ape theory - if our ancestors spent so much time in water that we evolved a hymen, hairlessness, and that nice layer of body fat to deal with it, why does my skin still shrivel up like a prune when I soak in the bathtub? It seems like water-resistant skin would have been high on the evolutionary priority list.
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
Hear, Hear!
It’s all or nothing in this advanced genetics game – borrowing one feature from environment ‘A’, two more from shorthand pattern ‘B’, and a few more from random association ‘C’ is self-contradictory to it’s core. (But then, life does consist almost entirely of propositions about chance made by chance . . . )
Good god! I mean, it’s only been a lousy billion years or so that we’ve been at this – scarcely time to have cross-pollinated quite so thoroughly. (Give us time though – our geneticists will cross-breed us with ears of corn soon enough!)
(Still favoring the Tupperware thing so far . . . but I’m still a bit wary of that tonsils idea . . . . anyway, “The smaller the thread, the tighter the weave,” and all that rot . . . tut, tut . . .)
Aw heck, you guys! I am a student nurse. You don’t really want to know the purposes of the adenoids and the hymen and all, now do you?! Sheesh, just go get an anatomy and physiology textbook from the library.
Concerning why the palms and feet wrinkle in water.
I ran a search. 
http://www.last-word.com/lastword/answers/lwa121body.html
Since padding on the hands and feets seems like it would be useful, even if wading through swamps and tidal basins, I’m glad to have it.
“Aquatic Ape Theory! Oh the symmetry of it all! I love it! Now, while I realize that the theatre of the absurd demands aggressive anti-realism, I must confess that I still can’t swim.”
So?
Can you wade?
Still, that is the one reason this is hardly a mainstream theory.
Lack of evidence. It explains features without making any predictions.
Another just-so story.
“(Why do I sense a set-up here?)
Evolutionary debates tend to get muddied up in the assumption that all genetic mutation (read: evolution) is purposive rather than accidental. 99.99999% of all genetic mutations do not survive for more than a few hours,”
False.
It seems that each of us has, on average, four mutations between us and our parents.
We are still alive.
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/mutation990127.html
“and of the rest ‘survival of the fittest’ is a dream of random chance – the reality reads more like ‘survival of what survives.’”
Try, survival of that which is best at replicating in a given environment. This still allows lots of room for the environment to affect us. Hence the basis for AAT.
“Which would be to say that ascribing individual parts of an organism to specific evolutionary causation would turn into one hell of a mess if applied synergistically.”
But that is exactly what occurs, and why our bodies are such a Rube Goldberg device to decipher. One adaptation affects another and so on. The end results can be very difficult to untangle. But, nonetheless, broad patterns can be noted in inhabitants of various environments. Cold lands result in round shapes and fur, sea in streamlining and body fat.
Or am I misunderstanding?
“In any case, as much as I hate falling back on the law of the excluded middle, either the hymen is explained by the Aquatic Ape (in which case we’re oddly back to Tupperware), or it isn’t (in which case . . . um . . . I guess it’s Tupperware again . . .)”
Well, actually, if the hymen is in common with sea creatures, then it seems likely it would serve a purpose in the sea.
That at least narrows down what to look for.
A fairly big excluded middle.
(sigh)
I didn’t really expect this to get quite so arcane, but I have to credit your zeal Kyber. The links are amazing.
Unfortunately, everybody and their sister seems to be armed to the teeth with theories that rely solely on the ‘plausibility’ of their explanation at the expense of any actual knowledge.
To begin, if ABC News says that there are an average of four genetic mutations in each individual per human generation then I, for one, would have no choice but to believe them. Journalists are widely revered for their accuracy and insight, and this kind of reportage only solidifies their position. But this still misses the point entirely.
A molecular mutation that somehow manages to survive and replicate has no particular purpose in mind outside of it’s own survival. It could as easily result in something completely useless or even harmful as in something that can actually be evaluated as ‘caused’. All evolution is not necessarily good or positive, as anyone with Tay Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia will gladly attest.
The truth is, because mutation is random and non-purposive, 99.99999% of all mutations do not survive – they sort of pop into molecular reality, look around for a few nano-seconds, and either immediately die of fright or are gobbled up by something that thinks they’d make a good snack. Most of the hundreds of thousands of mutations that occur in your body each day are not life threatening – unless one of them gets a good toehold and decides to start crowding you out – we usually call those mutations ‘cancers’.
Certainly, over the course of a billion or so years, some traits that are useful to environmental factors will crowd-out and largely eliminate less useful traits – but this is an organism-wide process. The cold-land traits are not evenly or randomly mixed with aquatic traits. The specificity of the conditions necessary to allow a mutation to evolve into a trait would rule out such things as a land mammal growing gills.
As I said, a billion years is not really very much time for this kind of sci-fi horror show to realize itself.
You are right to observe that the end results can be difficult to untangle. But keep in mind that we’ve only been about the business of trying to untangle them in any conscientious manner for a few generations – the planet has a really big head start on us. Folks like the ‘Aquatic Ape’ theorists who throw the equivalent of ‘Weekly World News’ scenarios into the debate cannot be ridiculed thoroughly enough. I enjoy zestful intuition as well as the next guy, but “What if” is not going to become “What is” just by aggressive assertion.
That said, I’m still not understanding the sea creature thing – does their hymen not rupture? If it’s like a flap that keeps closing again I can almost get it, but it still seems like a reach as explanations go. I mean, the human vagina doesn’t end up flooded when non-virgins go swimming, and I’ve never heard any horror stories about embarrassing water retention after having sex in the swimming pool.
Anybody have any, “Boy, if I had only still had my hymen,” stories to share? We’re stretching this thread way too thin.
First of all, Crick&Watson, neither I, nor the AAT theory (which I treat with certain scepticism) claim a land animal growing gills.
The changes are in fact much more minor, and similar to those manifested in other air breathing, but water dwelling mammals.
So there is already precedent.
Secondly, I was not objecting to the fact that most mutations are not useful, merely to your claim that the recipients of the mutation do not survive. Many many errors can come up which do not add up enough to kill the individual. In fact, that’s how DNA dating and ancestral trees are developed. Did you notice the part about 1.6 out of the 4 being bad enough to be weeded out?
Thirdly, the reason I linked ABCnews was that there was the first place I noticed the article. I’ve seen the study referenced in other places as well, and assumed you had too. (the ABCnews article even mentioned a Nature follow-up)
Nevertheless, for your benefit.
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499scicit4.html
Another reference.
This one links to the ABCnews article, Nature, and pages for the authors.
Unfortunately, Nature’s search engine is down at the time, so I can’t locate the article on their site.
We have no argument Kyber. Just to clear up the record, my original comment (above) was that 99.9999% of all genetic mutations do not survive, referring to those mutations themselves without regard for the organism in which they may occur. You are disagreeing with my agreement.
The gills comment was simply illustative hyperbole, for which I apologize. It was not to assert that such a thing has occurred.
Now that we are in substantially tidy agreement, we remain no closer to an explanation. Clearly the hymen, by virtue of existing in humans, is a feature of our evolution – but keeping the water out is pretty far fetched as purposes go, don’t you think?
Agreed.
But, concerning that excluded middle.
It is known that a hymen is a feature of acquatic mammals.
If AAT is correct, and humans share this feature due to having once been acquatic, then there is a possibility we had it for the same reason other acquatic mammals had it.
If that is the case, then we can observe the results of the lack of a hymen in a water mammal and conclude that this was the reason we originally had it.
It does not provide an answer, but at least a line of inquiry.
And it was for that reason that I posted the AAT link, which seemed at least a step above “freshness seal” or “selected for by the patriarchy”.
Oh, and I almost forgot.
Also, it appears horses have hymens as well.
http://www.horse-previews.com/596articles/596vetcorner.html
Which casts the AAT theory into further doubt.
Also.
Keeping water out would be pretty far-fetched with the hymen in it’s current vestigal to non-existant state.
But it might be more effective if it formed a seal.
The hymen has absolutely nothing to do with
forming a seal. It’s only the mommy and
daddy seal that can do that.
Kara’s Bizarre Movie Quote for the Day:
“And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.”