"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> In article <oS4De.2653$R5.552@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> |> You have NEVER dealt
> |> with those I propose: the fact that human
> |> infants are manifestly not designed for a life
> |> anywhere near water. They will drown if
> |> dropped into even the shallowest pool, and
> |> will suffer from salt- or water-poisoning if
> |> they injest any quantity of salt or fresh water.
> You post that in jest, I hope? :-)
> No, they can ingest significant quantities of fresh water,
OK, it's hardly a major problem. The infant
would, in nearly all cases drown first.
But water-poisoning does occur. Do a
google search or see sites such as:
> and paediatricians recommending giving even newborns water
> in hot weather (in small quantities).
Very small quantities -- needed when
the baby has diarrhoea or vomits a lot.
> They cannot take much salt, as in sea water.
> My guess is that this is equally
> true of almost all newborn mammals,
All marine mammals, including sea-otters,
will be born capable of dealing with
mouthfuls of sea-water, and with water
generally. Human infants aren't. They
manifestly have no adaptations for such
an environment, and never have had.
> such as the equally
> dependent baby rats, so proves nothing.
If someone was arguing that baby rats
had evolved to spend a lot of time being
carried in, or just above, water, such a
(theoretical) condition might have some
You have to be a real nut-case to pretend
to believe that human infants evolved
into such a 'niche' -- especially since there
is not another remotely like it, and its
proponents can give no reason for the
uniqueness of their conceived 'niche'
other than that its supposed existence
takes their fancy.