not raw but pretty darn rawsome if you ask me! teaching the babes to live as one with the waters of the planet. darn cool.

Best.Video.Ever
[www.childdrowningprevention.com]
cross posted everywhere. pass it on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2008 03:43AM by coco.

i didn't know two years old could swim
that is great

actually, all babies will instinctively hold their breath and swim if you drop them into water. if you don't do it regularly they lose the instinct after 6 months but before that it's incredible to see.

check these out
[ca.youtube.com]
[ca.youtube.com]

i read an amazing book once called "the descent of woman" by elaine morgan where she talks about an alternate evolutionary theory involving water. Ver, i think you would like it if you haven't read it already, check it out. another of her books called "the descent of the child" was equally fascinating.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> actually, all babies will instinctively hold their
> breath and swim if you drop them into water. if
> you don't do it regularly they lose the instinct
> after 6 months but before that it's incredible to
> see.
>
> check these out
> [ca.youtube.com]
> related
> [ca.youtube.com]
> related
>
> i read an amazing book once called "the descent of
> woman" by elaine morgan where she talks about an
> alternate evolutionary theory involving water.
> Ver, i think you would like it if you haven't read
> it already, check it out. another of her books
> called "the descent of the child" was equally
> fascinating.


The swimming infant response is found in all mammals tested, including other primates (and rabbits, cats, opposums, guinea pigs, rats). It's because their lives up to birth have been spent in a watery environment. I am familiar with Elaine Morgan's works (some say I've spent far too much of my time on them ) and while I understand how appealing they are as stories, and how appealing the meta-story she's carefully built up about herself (as a valiant battler against closed-minded science) can be, her theory just doesn't hold up. What's worse is how she makes her case -- by making up "facts", altering quotes, and claiming researchers said the opposite of what they actually did. If you wish to see examples of this, from her work and the work of others on the same idea, I have a web site that's been used as a source for several articles as well as college courses, and I've written an entry on the theory for the Sage Encyclopedia of Anthropology. The web site is "Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim?" at [www.aquaticape.org]

That's the amazing thing I've ever seen. I've forwarded the link to all the moms I know.

awesome blackfoot, that's what i want to hear. i think every parent everywhere should see it, it's just incredible.

hey there Asciguy, i know all about the controversy but the point of the books for me, that thing that i was most interested in and that holds true no matter the rest of it all, is that evolution would never have favoured any sex or age group over another. there is a lesson there and it's one worth examining. i LOVED her books, just loved them. and i keep in mind what the buddah says about not believing anything that anyone says to you, not even what you hear from the buddah himself. i knew the parts of that book that were true the instant i read them, they were powerful and affirming books to read.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hey there Asciguy, i know all about the
> controversy but the point of the books for me,
> that thing that i was most interested in and that
> holds true no matter the rest of it all, is that
> evolution would never have favoured any sex or age
> group over another. there is a lesson there and
> it's one worth examining. i LOVED her books, just
> loved them. and i keep in mind what the buddah
> says about not believing anything that anyone says
> to you, not even what you hear from the buddah
> himself. i knew the parts of that book that were
> true the instant i read them, they were powerful
> and affirming books to read.

You might want to look up Nancy Tanner's ground-breaking 1981 book, "On Becoming Human". It's available in many public libraries, used book stores, etc. It's an accurate book, based on actual facts, has been backed up by discoveries made since it was published (the opposite of Morgan's works). Tanner was one of the women who changed the face of paleoanthropology by pointing out the immensely important position of women and children during our past, and how innovations by women were key to our evolution.

I personally feel that you don't get to truth by lying, but by being truthful. That approach would favor Tanner over Morgan.

thanks for the book recommendation, i'll look her up for sure.

facts have their place but aren't the end all and be all for me. it feels like you have/had a lot invested in E morgan and her theories and maybe feel a little burned by your experience. not judging here, just pointing out the difference in our take on it all. i feel like her books led me to read and study more, to take anth courses in uni, and ultimately to have this discussion with you about another book that i will possibly enjoy immensely. i can't resent morgan for offering what she thought, no matter if she was wrong in the end. it's up to me to research it and decide for myself how true i think it is. can't fault her for being passionate about it or beleiving that what she was saying was the truth. the woman who wrote diet for a small planet was very passionate and totally wrong too (she did recant later on however) but what she offered was heartfelt with good intentions and contributed something positive as a whole. that's how i feel about morgan too. being wrong is a human condition, we are all wrong all the time. good intentions count for a lot in my book

I understand that someone can find a book (or whatever work) useful in stimulating their thoughts about something even if the book isn't true. After all, that's what fiction so often does. But I think there is a difference between merely being wrong and being wrong in the way Morgan has consistently been. For instance, she read things and reported that they said something they didn't; that's not just wrong, but dishonest. And she's done this throughout her writings for decades, even repeating this stuff after it's been unequivacly pointed out to her that she's wrong -- with references to show how and where. OTOH, your example of Frances Moore Lappe: she was not "totally wrong", far from it. Her error about protein combining was based on stuff she should've probably gotten right, but it was only a part of her overall thesis, and her thesis did not depend on that error, and she corrected that error. That's good; we all make mistakes, it's what we do when they're pointed out that shows our mettle.

But I am glad that reading Morgan got you interested in taking courses in anthro.

hey coco

i did a search on the book u suggested
but didn't seem to get a decent synopsis
still not sure what the controversy is about as this is the first time i am hearing about her work

at any rate, it does make sense that babies swimming is natural since ( as anthrosciguy pointed out and its probably obvious to u as well) we were all gestated from aquatic environments

well, not sure if u read my other reply to your thread in OT but this interested me because my friend's sister's son drowned ( 5 years old)

this was several years ago but he decided to take a little "swim" since he was curious about the water and that is all it took

when i heard about it , it really made my heart sink

i bet his life could have been saved had he learned how to swim in a formal environment like that

at any rate, this is a cool thread even though i still don't know who this morgan woman is and what the big deal is all about

cue me in

hey ver, here are two links to some stuff about her, the second has some reader reviews. taking into account what our resident sci-guy has to say, this should give a bit more info about what she wrote. she's an interesting cat and i found her books to be really interesting and readable. that's rare when you're talking anthro, mostly they read like a text book which can be fascinating in it's way but also quite dry. i devoured her books, couldn't put them down. nan tanner seems to be a bit harder to find and from what i can tell is more on the text book side but i'll ask the library to find me a copy and give it a go anyhow.

it's too bad about morgan being proven wrong and sticking to it but hey, we all used to think the world was flat and the centre of the universe and people got knocked off for saying different, proof or no. people really want to believe what they believe.

[en.wikipedia.org])

[www.amazon.com]

ver, i did read what you wrote in the OT, that is just too sad. drowning happens all the time and is preventable in a lot of cases. matbe not with a swiftly running current but a pool for sure. i'd really like to teach this, if there's one job-for-pay that i can see myself happily doing, it's this one.

i wonder sciguy how that is still a reflex after birth, the auto swimming in the water thing. it's not like a baby has all that much room in there for the last couple of months. there's no swimming going on at all, they're just curled up in a tight little ball getting squished!
my wee girl is about 7 months now and i was thinking the other day about how morgan said that our babes are born about 6 months prematurely as compares to the development of other primates. this is presumably due to our giant head size, any later and birth would be impossible for the mother. we are the only primate to give birth to such a helpless infant though. they can't even hold their own heads up. so strange that.
i am curious too about how we got such a big brain made up of so much efa. if not for fish, where did this giant fatty brain come from? it's amazing.

hey coco
cool thanks for links

okay.. hmmm good questions
reminds me of adult birds supervising their little chickadees as they sputter around trying to learn how to fly

" I get by with a little help from my friends..." ( that song came to mind when I think of that )

"giant fatty brain"

i'll remember that coco when i am facing a tough task

i'll just say to myself " Ver, u have a giant fatty brain, you can do this LOL

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i wonder sciguy how that is still a reflex after
> birth, the auto swimming in the water thing. it's
> not like a baby has all that much room in there
> for the last couple of months. there's no swimming
> going on at all, they're just curled up in a tight
> little ball getting squished!
> my wee girl is about 7 months now and i was
> thinking the other day about how morgan said that
> our babes are born about 6 months prematurely as
> compares to the development of other primates.
> this is presumably due to our giant head size, any
> later and birth would be impossible for the
> mother. we are the only primate to give birth to
> such a helpless infant though. they can't even
> hold their own heads up. so strange that.
> i am curious too about how we got such a big brain
> made up of so much efa. if not for fish, where did
> this giant fatty brain come from? it's amazing.

On the reflex part, as I mentioned, this has been found in all mammals tested; it is not unique to humans. It's part of a series of reflexes that seem to be hardwired for movement. The movements the infant animal makes in the water are the same they use on land. For many infant mammals, including humans, these movements aren't enough to propel them forward on land, but they have them. Here's an interesting link with a list of these reflexes.

[www.fpnotebook.com]

The brain thing for humans is tied to the timing of birth, and our post-natal brain development is unique among mammals (or anything else really). The human brain is not uniquely fatty, BTW, as as post suggests. Fatty acids are present in large amounts in any brain; they're required for brain function. Contrary to claims by some (most) AAT/H proponents, fish oils aren't required for brain growth. For one thing the type of fish that's best for this is cold-water marine fish (such as salmon or cod, for instance) wasn't available to our ancestors until we were relatively advanced, brainwise. For another, the required fatty acids can be synthesized in our bodies from plant sources, and gotten from other sources such as wild game. Infants can't synthesize these but get it from breast milk. These sources, like wild game, aren't used much nowadays, and a lot fo plant food is processed too much, and not a great source, so fish is one of the better sources, along with things like flax-seed oil, for these fatty acids. It should be noted that farmed fish originally wasn't a good source because they weren't feeding them right; that's mostly been changed although there are still problems with intensive fish farming (additives and such).

hmm, interesting.
i have much fun touching baby here and there to see how she will react. she is very smiley and calm (unlike baby number 1) so we get a ton of interaction and easy communication. i'm about to start some sign language with her which should be interesting. she is certainly adept at communicating her needs to me already without language! her body language and sounds are pretty distinct. phenominal for under 8 months. just incredible to observe.

i taught my daughter to sign, and man did she run with it. she was making up signs and teaching them to me! and she was telling jokes before she could speak. it was hilarious. but the best part is that she could always communicate her needs and wants without frustration.

have fun with that!