Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   why is the lack of "fur" positive Progression for humans?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 76 of 202 (484574)
09-29-2008 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by arrogantape
09-29-2008 9:52 AM


Re: new babies can instinctually swim
Hi, arrogantape.
arrogantape writes:
Now, I'd say why on earth do our naked babies know how to swim, and love it, while no primate, other than the wading Japanese monkeys, have anything to do with water.
Did you even read the link, or even my comment in Message 68? Here's what you would have seen if you had:
quote:
They always seem to mention the human infants and how their movements are usually "rhythmical and organized" and are "ordinarily sufficiently forceful to propel the baby a short distance through the water". So far so good. But they don't seem to ever mention the fact that the same study looked at other mammalian infants (opossum, rat, kitten, rabbit, guinea pig, and rhesus monkey) and found that they behaved the same way: "these rhythmical movements of the human infant are quite similar to those of other young quadrupeds in water".
I guess it's my fault for not providing this particular quote in my message, but I did provide a link to it. The little commentary on Moore's site is really just a tiny blurb, so I thought it wouldn't be too much trouble.
Please note that another primate (rhesus monkey) was also tested in the same study and showed the same behaviors as human infants. So, please stop asserting that human infants are somehow unique in this ability without showing evidence that overturns my evidence.
And, maybe babies know how to hold their breath because they lived in an aquatic environment for the first nine months before parturition, and didn't breathe through their mouths during that time.
-----
arrogantape writes:
It is hot where they live, yet they are well furred.
Most mammals from hot regions have fur: warthogs, lions, hunting dogs, anteaters, bats, bears, water buffalo, antelope, camels, zebras, capybaras, lemurs, tarsiers, etc. (The ones in bold are mammals with significantly thicker fur than primates.) Clearly, the presence of fur has nothing to do with climate.
Please also notice that elephants and rhinos and naked mole rats have lost their fur. None of these did so for hydrodynamic purposes.
arrogantape writes:
There are nasty predators that stalk [bonobos], and so they still can use all limbs for running and climbing.
Australopithecus could probably outrun a bonobo, in terms of both absolute speed and endurance.
-----
By the way, if you put "qs=Person's Name" inside brackets [ ], then cut and paste the quote, then follow up with "/qs" in the same brackets, you get this:
Person's Name writes:
This is a quote box.
You can push the "peek" button at the bottom of a message, and it will show you all the formatting and hyperlinking codes in that message.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 9:52 AM arrogantape has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 77 of 202 (484576)
09-29-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by arrogantape
09-29-2008 2:16 PM


Hi, Ape.
arrogantape writes:
Add to that our peculiar naked bodies, blubber floats, elongated body, AND a natural swimming instinct, and no wonder some of us question our origins.
Okay, here's a quote from the other link that I provided in Message 68:
quote:
Morgan uses Pond's observations that humans are on the fat end of the scale compared to other mammals as her basis, but ignores Pond's observations that both quantity and amount of fat in humans is similar to that of captive monkeys if they aren't kept on a strict diet.
So, there is nothing unique about human fat that point to a special adaptation to water. If you want to argue fat, you must understand that your argument also supports an aquatic origin for all mammal taxa.
Also, there is nothing unique about our natural swimming instincts, either.
So, what's left? Long legs and no hair.
These two are just as easily explained as a running adaptation as a swimming adaptation.
Also note that no truly aquatic mammal has long legs (you might could make a case for the capybara, but that's a bit of a stretch). In fact, no truly aquatic vertebrate, extant or fossil, has/had long legs. Every aquatic vertebrate has/had an elongated body and shortened hindlimbs, probably because long hindlimbs would increase drag.
arrogantape, message #73, writes:
I ask everyone, what do you think this slender upright brachiate, Afarensis, have that made it so successful?
Free hands.
And better running ability than its forebears.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 2:16 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 78 of 202 (484579)
09-29-2008 4:44 PM


Sorry about my slowness to adapt to the posting styles here. I am a Macman and have an allergic reaction to codes.
I would not try to outrun a chimp or gorilla. I would loose. Free hands are what the other primates have when they are not running, or climbing. Afarensis is being found with no tools. Their brain is small on the hominid scale.
The only other model we have for the earliest hominids is an ape peaking over the grass model. generally speaking, for long grass to grow in Africa, a good rainfall must occur.
I have stated, I cannot fathom how Lucy managed to survive. Those long legs will increase endurance, like the Bushmen show so well, but they are armed. A slight naked upright gracile ape trotting about is lunch. By the way, the newest Afarensis find is that of a 3 year old baby. It appears to have died by being swept away.
I don't ever accept time honored models. From Shakespeare authorship, to audio, I am always looking into the new thinkers. The aquatic hominid strikes true for me subjectively.

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2008 5:40 PM arrogantape has replied
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2008 2:34 PM arrogantape has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 79 of 202 (484582)
09-29-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by arrogantape
09-29-2008 4:44 PM


Hi, Ape.
arrogantape writes:
Sorry about my slowness to adapt to the posting styles here. I am a Macman and have an allergic reaction to codes.
It was just some helpful information. It just makes the dicussion easier to follow.
Also, if you use the "Reply" button at the bottom of a message instead of the "Gen Reply" at the bottom of the page, the message appears as a response to that message, and lets people know who you're replying to. Some people are set up to receive E-mail notification when a response is written to them, and they don't get that notification if the response isn't attached to their message.
-----
arrogantape writes:
I would not try to outrun a chimp or gorilla. I would loose.
I don't believe that chimpanzees and gorillas can outrun humans (on average, and assuming non-couch potato humans, of course).
I found one study, here, that puts maximum human running speeds at just under 8 body lengths per second, and gorillas at less than five and a half. Using the body lengths given in the study, that puts humans at around 24 mph, and gorillas around 20 mph.
Of course, they probably used an Olympic record for the maximum human speed (my university doesn't have a subscription to the paper where the numbers for this study came from, so I don't know), and average speeds would probably be more informative than maxima, anyway. However, I'm confident that the average human today is a poorer runner than our Paleolithic forebears.
arrogantape writes:
Free hands are what the other primates have when they are not running, or climbing.
But, there would be an obvious survival advantage to being able to carry one's child while running.
arrogantape writes:
I have stated, I cannot fathom how Lucy managed to survive.
Clearly, though, she did survive. I like to think Australopithecus could have waved its arms around while running to scare vultures off carcasses or even startle predators. Standing up makes you look bigger than you really are.
Of course, the topic is hairlessness in humans, and we seem to have gone quite noticeably off that topic. Perhaps we could open up a new thread about aquatic vs cursorial Australopithecus?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 4:44 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 7:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 80 of 202 (484591)
09-29-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
09-29-2008 5:40 PM


Bluejay, did I click the right reply button?
You know, I think we would agree on almost everything science wise. Too bad I started us on the wrong foot.
I just find our looks fascinating. The huge structural revolution our fore-species undertook eons ago boggles my mind. I remember reading, "Lucy," in the 70's, where Johanson expressed surprise at the fact it's pelvis and legs were so advanced at such an early date in our development.
I am sure you are as eager as I to see what they dig up next. Ardipithecus ramidus is certainly interesting. The folks studying the many bones think this creature may have been bipedal. The teeth say something between chimp and Afarensis. Geneticists have put the split some 5 million years ago. Well, it could be chimps diverged from us rather than the other way around.
Yes, I did see your baby swim refutation. Interesting, I never saw that before. Having, "Them too," examples thrown up at me all the time is ego deflating.
There is no refuting our physiology allows us to swim faster and far longer, as well as under water, than any other primate. We do it well, and there are generations of folks who did that for a livelihood.
We not only are hairless, we have this bum. Female sexual organs are out of sight, where chimps are there in living color. Our feet have nearly fully lost their prehensile ability, specializing in locomotion on land and in water.
I already mentioned all the changes our whole body has to go through to make bipedalism
possible. There really is no workable intermediate. Unless...... that entails evolving to swim rather than walk first.
Nakedness is better than chimp hair for speed, and prompt drying. There is no arguing sleek skin is a bonafide water travel garb. it isn't so cool for brush whacking. I know that first hand..... ouch!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2008 5:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 3:00 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 202 (484651)
09-30-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by arrogantape
09-29-2008 4:44 PM


I have stated, I cannot fathom how Lucy managed to survive.
Okay, and I cannot fathom how the hodge-podge of various characteristics lead to the conclusion that human ancestors were aquatic. But people couldn't fathom the implications of quantum mechanics, either. Before that, Europeans couldn't fathom an ethical framework where Europeans weren't superior. Before that, no one could fathom how the earth could be moving through space.
What one can or cannot fathom is a pretty poor way or reaching definite conclusions. That is why it is so important to check one's ideas with actual evidence.

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 4:44 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 4:48 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 82 of 202 (484659)
09-30-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chiroptera
09-30-2008 2:34 PM


If I remember correctly, Einstein first understood Relativity first, and substantiated that understanding with the mathematics constituting fact.
Quantum Physics was met with derision on it's outset. Some mathematics have given scientists a toe hold on facts. Bigger and bigger cyclotrons are working with the theory.
I don't think there would be any interest in aquatic derived legs in line with spine and nakedness, and breath control, and highly developed sweat glands, and smooth derrier, and common sense, if the conventional explanation we slowly made all these adjustments working out survival strategies on vicious plains, when other savannah primates are doing the opposite.
Remember, brain development followed uprightness. Lucy didn't make tools of any kind. The clever fingers allowed for faster manipulation of obstacles hiding food stuffs.
On the plain, primates have two goals. Those are foraging for food, and the other being close to a safe tree. They have retained their protective fur, four legged speed, and superior climbing strengths.
I am quite willing to drop water friendly Hominids, if some other model were to come up. The exciting recent discoveries of A. Ramidus only brings supportive new evidence into light for my side. Along with Ramidus they have recovered other relating fossils that suggest thick forested FLOOD plain.
This creature is deemed different enough to be given a different genus. Their dental details share characteristics of both chimp and hominid. The exciting and confounding thing to the savannah grass theory is the pelvis suggests bipedal locomotion. Think about that. Bipedal locomotion came right away. It was not a slow development.
So the present knowledge says a bipedal barely hominid creature lived in a heavily forested flood plain.
They didn't swing from trees Gibbon like. Their build suggest floor foraging. The floor is covered in water. Under the water are succulent plants, amphibians and their eggs, snails, clambs, insects, and so much more. Meanwhile we should be able to assume they built nests in the trees. Chimps do.
What better way to be than naked?????? One advantage I haven't read yet is parasites are easy to locate on bare skin. If you live in a place where ticks are a problem, you know it is far easier to find them on yourself, and your kids than your furry friends.
I already mentioned quick drying, sleek gliding, and conformation to some other aquatic beings.
It is not the fact we are swimming apes sounds right, facts are coming in that support it too.
The fact shaving body hair is popular, we like bare bodies. Sexual preferences surely supported nudeness, but the environment made the first play for our smooth skin.
Also, bringing the legs in line with the spine works for swimming and walking. Our sports are proof of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2008 2:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2008 6:28 PM arrogantape has replied

  
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 83 of 202 (484662)
09-30-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LouieP
01-15-2008 12:27 PM


I've skimmed the thread, but haven't read it thoroughly, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned, but according to Neodarwinism not all traits are beneficial adaptations.
That isn't to say that relative hairlessness isn't an adaptation, just that it doesn't have to be. Some traits are the result of genetic drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LouieP, posted 01-15-2008 12:27 PM LouieP has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 202 (484671)
09-30-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by arrogantape
09-30-2008 4:48 PM


I don't think there would be any interest in aquatic derived legs in line with spine and nakedness, and breath control, and highly developed sweat glands, and smooth derrier, and common sense, if the conventional explanation we slowly made all these adjustments working out survival strategies on vicious plains, when other savannah primates are doing the opposite.
What do you think of the fact that the people who have an interest in the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis compose a very small group, most of whom have almost no training in physical anthropology or paleontology or archeology?

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 4:48 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 6:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 85 of 202 (484673)
09-30-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Chiroptera
09-30-2008 6:28 PM


There were the same traditionalists that slowed down our understanding of the therapod origin of birds. People who believe the son of a shoe repairer wrote the Canon overpopulate academia. I went through a lot of university science training and yet I refuse to let my imagination suffer ossification.
I was told to stick to the facts. My last post did.
The new news was A Ramidus evolved in a heavily forested floodplain. What do you think Ramidus was doing to support his family?
Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2008 6:28 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2008 9:50 PM arrogantape has replied
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2008 8:58 AM arrogantape has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 202 (484682)
09-30-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by arrogantape
09-30-2008 6:43 PM


flood plain is plainly not flooded plain
Hello arrogantape,
The new news was A Ramidus evolved in a heavily forested floodplain. What do you think Ramidus was doing to support his family?
Digging up tubers and eating nuts and fruits.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm
quote:
CLASSIFICATION
This early fossil hominid was initially placed within the Australopithecus genus, with a new specific epithet - ramidus (from the Afar word "ramid", meaning "root") [White, et al, 1994]. Tim White and associates have subsequently reassigned the hominid to a new genus, noting the apparently extreme dissimilarities between ramidus and all other known Australopithecines. They proposed Ardipithecus (from "ardi", which means "ground" or "floor" in the Afar language) to be the genus [White, et al, 1995].
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The initial and most extensive publication [White, et al, 1994] concerning Ardipithecus. ramidus specified that 17 hominid fossils had been located by the end of 1993. These specimens were retrieved from a cluster of localities West of the Awash River, within the Afar Depression, Aramis, Ethiopia.
Hominid and associated fossil faunas, including wood, seed and vertebrate specimens, were found entirely within a single interval overlying the basal Gaala Tuff complex, and beneath the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (these volcanic strata have produced dates of 4.389 and 4.388 million years, respectively) [Renne, et al, 1999]. This definitively places all Ardipithecine specimens just shy of 4.4 million years ago.
Additionally, the associated strata were most likely produced within the context of a heavily forested, flood plain environment. Evidence for this conclusion was derived from representative non-human fossil remains, particularly from those species whose present-day analogues are environment-specific.
Curiously a flood plain is not always flooded, nor is seasonal flooding necessary to be classified as flood plain. The specification for heavily forested could easily be more descriptive of very occasionally flooded plains.
Living in these kind if areas could just mean that the ground is easier to dig for finding tubers and that there are nut and fruit bearing trees and bushes growing in the fertile soil with a relatively high water table.
Then we have the consideration of anatomy (ibid):
quote:
ANATOMY
A morphological description of the initial, mainly dental, fossil remains of Ardipithecus ramidus was published by White et al, 1994. The physical attributes of this hominid show a range of primitive traits, which are most likely character retentions from the last hominid/chimpanzee ancestor. At the same time, some hominid innovations are equally apparent. The currently known traits of Ardipithecus ramidus, in general, can be placed within two categories: ape-like traits and Australopithecine-like traits.
Much of the dentition is ape-like and this hominid most likely had a significantly different dietary niche than did later hominids. A small canine-incisor to postcanine dental ratio, typical of all other known hominids, is strikingly absent in Ardipithecus ramidus. In addition to the presence of a relatively large anterior dentition, tooth enamel is thin. Though slightly greater than in teeth of modern chimpanzees, enamel thickness of A. ramidus is extremely thin by hominid standards.
Premolar and molar morphology also point to niche affinities with the great ape ancestors. Strong crown asymmetries, in particular enlarged buccal cusps, characterize the upper and lower premolars. Additionally, an ape-like molar shape prevails. The length (in the mesiodistal plane) to breadth (in the buccolingual plane) ratio, which is roughly equal to 1 in later hominids, is much greater in A. ramidus.
Some important derived features, link Ardipithecus ramidus with the Australopithecines. Hominid-like canines are present. These are low, blunt, and less projecting than the canines of all other known apes. Upper and lower incisors are larger than those of the Australopithecines, but are smaller than those of chimpanzees. This character state can thus be considered transitional between apes and Australopithecines. Additionally, the lower molars are broader than those of a comparably-sized ape. This trait, too, approaches the common hominid condition.
Finally, something can be said of the skeletal anatomy and how it relates to the potentiality for bipedalism in A. ramidus. Pieces of the cranial bones that have been recovered, including parts of the temporal and the occipital, strongly indicate an anterior positioned foramen magnum. The fact that the skull of A. ramidus rested atop the vertebral column, rather than in front of it, suggests that if this creature was not bipedal in the modern sense, it at least had key adaptations toward a similar end.
Scanty postcranial remains (most significantly, a partial humerus) indicate that A. ramidus was smaller in size than the mean body size of Australopithecus afarensis. However, this particular estimate falls within the range of variation of A. afarensis.
That puts it intermediate between ape and Australopithicus, and thus more like apes in ability to swim. It also seems to me that the skull placement on the spine argues against an aquatic ape adaptation, as now you have to lift your head more to breath, whereas most aquatic or amphibious animals are arranged to facilitate breathing.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 6:43 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 11:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 87 of 202 (484694)
09-30-2008 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
09-30-2008 9:50 PM


Re: flood plain is plainly not flooded plain
RAZD,
Are you and I reading the same thing? I read the same site. This is obviously a glass half full or half empty situation.
The author said the skull of Ramidus was situated atop the spinal column, which indicates it was bipedal.
The teeth look a lot chimp, but they do exhibit hominid leanings. This proves Ramidus was just recently split off from the chimp line. Obviously they are going to share characteristics, even if behavior has radically changed.
The amazing thing is we are looking at a being that is shortly removed from a chimp, yet it is already going through the spinal, pelvis, foot changes that facilitates bipedal walking and swimming.
You mention dropping down from the trees to gather nuts and tubers. Ramidus was living with pigs and hippos. This was waterworld much of the year, if not always. Ramidus had to forage during the wet period. You know how many species flood in to the flood plains now. It is a world of abundance.
If nearly chimp Ramidus was at least partly bipedal, it was using this advantage for water foraging just as well as wading.
Think of the advantages! The big carnivores are not a threat, accept crocs, and they can be neutralized. Food is plentiful. You only have to swim to get to it.
Edited by arrogantape, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2008 9:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 3:00 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 202 (484723)
10-01-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by arrogantape
09-30-2008 6:43 PM


There were the same traditionalists that slowed down our understanding of the therapod origin of birds.
Hmm. So the entire fields of biology, archeology, and paleontology are filled with "traditionalists". These "traditionalists" managed to get into control of each and every university so that no one can be trained to look at the evidence with the same clarity of vision that you have.
Furthermore, out of all these traditionalists, not one has ever had the sort of doubts that would lead them to look at the evidence carefully and see the obvious conclusions that should be there? And have not been able to make a good case to sway the opinions of others?
Have you ever considered that your opinion in this matter is very similar to that held by creationists, global warming deniers, and WTC conspiracy theorists?
I admit that I'm not familiar with physical anthropology departments as I am with other fields, but I have a hard time believing that so many different people, coming from so many different social backgrounds, working in so many different fields, using such a wide variety of different methodologies, employed by so many different and independent institutions can really be caught up in this kind of
group think" as to hold onto an erroneous conclusion despite clear evidence to the contrary for such a long time?
In your words, I can't really fathom how this could happen. And, in fact, it has been my experience that when someone suggests that this is happening without any real evidence beyond that the consensus contradicts their preferred beliefs, then that is a sign that the person making this kind of accusation is motivated more by an intense desire to maintain her beliefs than by being swayed by clear evidence.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by arrogantape, posted 09-30-2008 6:43 PM arrogantape has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by arrogantape, posted 10-01-2008 12:01 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
arrogantape
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 89 of 202 (484745)
10-01-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Chiroptera
10-01-2008 8:58 AM


I resent you lumping me in with creationists. I am nothing of the sort. The fact is Leakey's awkward stretching for the berries model just isn't necessary anymore.
Even though Archaeopteryx was staring them in their face, paleontology academics stuck with a totally unsubstantiated idea a lizard climbed a tree and jumped off.
They were wrong wrong wrong, and their stubbornness held up real science for decades.
Generally speaking, paleontologists concern themselves with the morphology of their subject. Evolutionary trends are an energetic discussion.
The savannah model arose, because our fossil finds started way up the tree where creatures like Bosei, Handy Man, and Erectus were spreading all over. The earlier evolution of our species was unknown when the savannah model was adopted.
The associated biotic evidence for Ramidus and Aferensis are almost exclusively aquatic and semi aquatic.
Check out this scientific paper:
Page not found – River Apes (… Coastal People)
The notion of Savannah evolution is no longer applicable. If you look at recent literature you can find writers saying so, and that we must rethink bipedal and naked ape evolution. Afarensis invigorated the discussion of semi aquatic nature, and Ramidus underscores it's viability, Plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2008 8:58 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2008 4:48 PM arrogantape has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 90 of 202 (484769)
10-01-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by arrogantape
09-29-2008 7:45 PM


Hi, Ape.
arrogantape writes:
You know, I think we would agree on almost everything science wise. Too bad I started us on the wrong foot.
Don’t take anything I say personally (unless it’s obviously mean to be personal): you should know that scientists are all about beating up on each other’s theories. That’s the whole point.
I apologize if what I said was offensive to you.
-----
arrogantape writes:
There is no refuting our physiology allows us to swim faster and far longer, as well as under water, than any other primate.
Well, there is also no refuting that our longer, skinnier fingers fit in smaller holes than a gorilla’s, but that doesn’t mean they were made for picking our noses.
Have you ever looked at a horse? I can only imagine that a primitive man, seeing how fast that horse can run, really wanted to know what it felt like to be moving that fast, and, seeing how long and flat that horse’s back was, thinking that that horse was just begging to be sat on anyway. There’s no doubting that the horse’s physiology is nearly perfect for use as a mount, but that doesn’t imply a causative link.
arrogantape writes:
Our feet have nearly fully lost their prehensile ability, specializing in locomotion on land and in water.
I disagree: I don’t see how the human foot is specialized for locomotion in water. It doesn’t really look like the foot of anything that lives in water, as far as I can tell. In fact, I think it looks a lot more like the foot of a wolf or other cursorial mammal’s than an aquatic animal’s foot:
  • The foot is elongated between the ball and the heel, allowing greater leverage in a running step. This is a trait common to felines, canines and theropods, but not seen in beavers, whales, platypuses, otters or seals.
  • The toes are short, so they don’t break or make the step awkward (again, like the felines, canines and theropods, but not like aquatic mammals, which usually have long toes for walking in soft mud or for supporting a webbed foot).
Of course, our feet aren’t nearly as cursorially advanced as the canines’, felines’ or theropods’, but we had to compromise our running ability with our bipedal balancing ability, so that rather well explains the inconsistency there, I think.
arrogantape writes:
I already mentioned all the changes our whole body has to go through to make bipedalism possible. There really is no workable intermediate. Unless...... that entails evolving to swim rather than walk first.
How would swimming bridge the gap between brachiating and walking upright? I don’t see any sort of connection here.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by arrogantape, posted 09-29-2008 7:45 PM arrogantape has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024