why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?

Other then your claim, the only foot structure related limitation I've been able to find is that they would have been less efficient runners then we. If, as you say, "This creature enjoyed easy pickings on the island of Flores." would having been not particularly fleet of foot have been a significant impediment?Have you anything to support your repeated intimation that H. floresiensis might as well have been a penguin in the Tsingy karst? Edited by lyx2no, : Insert "Tsingy".Edited by lyx2no, : Fix some rather atrocious grammar.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.

Actually, the question that needs to be answered is: do you have anything more than Jungers' glib statement in a news article for NewScientist from your Message 151? (It would be nice if you'd tell us where you get your quotes.)Why didn't you use nature's take on H. floresiensis' running capacity:

quote:

---

For instance, because the foot lacks a well-defined medial longitudinal arch, recovery of stored elastic energy would have been limited in comparison with modern humans, especially during running, when mass-spring mechanics replace the pendular mechanics of walking. With a short hallux, relatively long lateral rays and a weight-bearing navicular tuberosity, pressure transfer through the foot in support phase and at toe-off also probably differed from modern humans. Kinematic differences related to clearance of the foot in swing phase would have been evident during both walking and running. The foot of H. floresiensis was not well-designed for either
high-speed or efficient endurance running.

---

Wasn't it dramatic enough to support your conformation bias? Note that it says H. floresiensis would have had evident kinematic differences during both walking and running; not "during waddling like a penguin with bunions"? Now, why do you think they'd bother to mention running if they were under the impression that H. floresiensis couldn't run at all, at all? They didn't mention H. floresiensis' shoulder structure would have hindered its ability to fly.Do you have anything from Jungers' (or any) scientific papers to support your contention of H. floresiensis' sub-par abilities to use its own feet to eke out a living on land?AbE: I just realized this is all off topic as I was wondering why RAZD and Bluejay kept going on about hair. One would think the "fur" bit in the title would have clued me, but no. Don't bother answering me, aa. I'll get about my way.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.Edited by lyx2no, : Sorry, OT.Edited by lyx2no, : Typos-n-stuff.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.

Hi aaWe both hit the submit reply button at the same time (12:41). You were replying at the same time I was saying no need to reply. I'll keep this short and not add anything to give you cause to reply again. Yeah, I like to use off the wall examples because folks are less prone to confusing the example with the argument. I couldn't count the number of times I've used a prosaic example only to find the person I was arguing with thought my interest lie in the example. Plus they're fun. It's a good metaphor, but my concern would be that It may be much more of an exaggeration then it would seem at first glance. Not merely due to size but also to a lack of kinesthesia. H. floresiensis would have grown up with their feet and understood how to use them as fluidly as we used our stubby, ice skate feet. Not to mention that I'd gone far astray in my own concern which was, "How do you come to this conclusion?". But that would be another thread.Sorry for the intrusion, folks.

---

It is far easier for you, as civilized men, to behave like barbarians than it was for them, as barbarians, to behave like civilized men.