 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » why are humans bipedal?... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marc Verhaegen... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:d451348dbe]So why would any ape want to walk on two legs? After all there is no real
advantage in doing this. It is far easier for an ape to walk on four legs, so
what evolutionary pressure would be needed to make apes want to stand up and
walk?
Wading and foraging in water is the obvious answer to this.
Exactly. Even after being on 2 legs, there would be pressure to
de-volve into 4-legged or knuckle walking. After all, human
kids all start by walking on 4-legs. It's hard to walk on 2.
And if Ardi is our ancestor, our feet have gotten smaller over time.
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Did Ardip had rel.larger feet than Hs?
[quote:d451348dbe]We really don't need big flat feet to walk: actually walking on your
toes is easier in some respects. There is a trend out for
runners lately where they run on their toes, in a semi-barefoot
state, rather than hitting the ground with their toes. Historically,
runners ran on their toes, and hunters walked on their toes too.
Dancers dance on their toes too. There is far less shock
to the spine that way.
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Yes, I've said this many times. It's often assumed that since apith
hindlimbs displayed some features seen in humans & not in apes, these
features indicate bipedalism. Wrong reasoning, of course.
[quote:d451348dbe]Human feet are basically duck-feet ...
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Ducks & seals have divergent pedal digital rays, sealions & humans have
parallel ones. All are plantigrade.
[quote:d451348dbe]duck feet can walk on
land, but they aren't very efficient at it. Our feet aren't very
efficient on land either. There really is no scientific reason to
say "Humans have the feet they evolved to walk and
stand on." ... we have these feet, yes, but WHY do we have
these particular feet? They are curiously inept feet, prone to
fallen arches and tripping and give too much shock to the
spine.
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Well-said, Heather.
[quote:d451348dbe]Our hands aren't much good either. Too weak to support
our weight well, bones too thin and prone to carpal tunnel.
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Yes, but rel.broad. And with rel.long first & last fingers.
A compromise between (ex)swimming & manipulation?
[quote:d451348dbe]And Ardi feet are even worse. It's hands were the size of it's
shinbone.
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Is this so? I'll have a new look at the illustrations.
Very interesting & telling.
[quote:d451348dbe]As for whether duck feet are better for wading or for swimming
or walking in muck ... if you watch a duck, it's a non-issue.
They do all three, constantly.
[/quote:d451348dbe]
Thanks a lot, heather.
Perhaps we should compare swams & ducks & geese with different combinations
of locomotions.
--marc |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:e8c239614a]On Oct 16, 1:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
Yes, I've said this many times.
[/quote:e8c239614a]
From Travsky's heads-up catch:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014
"His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals
20,000 years ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved
in a fossilized claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey."
The prey was not clams (you don't chase clams), more like something
the size of a kudu that came down to the water for a drink.
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they
are chasing an animal," he said.
We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 mya
http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3d6a40-f27f-429b-82f0-b58304353a77 at (no spam) h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quote:d753888bba]On Oct 16, 1:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
Yes, I've said this many times.
[/quote:d753888bba]
From Travsky's heads-up catch:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014
"His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals
20,000 years ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved
in a fossilized claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey."
The prey was not clams (you don't chase clams), more like something
the size of a kudu that came down to the water for a drink.
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they
are chasing an animal," he said.
We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 mya
http://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense.
The erectus had a short big toe with the second toe longest. My foot is like
that though not quite that much I think.
Ya'll have fun now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 4:02 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 16, 1:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
Yes, I've said this many times.
From Travsky's heads-up catch:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014
"His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals
20,000 years ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved
in a fossilized claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey."
The prey was not clams (you don't chase clams), more like something
the size of a kudu that came down to the water for a drink.
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they
are chasing an animal," he said.
We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 myahttp://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense.
[/quote]
I read through this article, but have not read "Mananthropology." The
question for me continues to be is this about "persistence" hunting or
running for some other reason? If it is persistence hunting, then why
would the hunter need to run faster at the end? Seems to me that if
this was the moment of the kill, he could walk over to the fallen,
exhausted animal.
regards
calder |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 16, 4:02 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if
they are chasing an animal," he said. We can tell that T8
is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 myahttp://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense.
I read through this article, but have not read
"Mananthropology." The question for me continues to
be is this about "persistence" hunting or running for
some other reason? If it is persistence hunting,
then why would the hunter need to run faster at the
end? Seems to me that if this was the moment of the
kill, he could walk over to the fallen, exhausted
animal.
regards calder
[/quote]
Don't you know how rude it is in this
'science' to ask direct logical questions?
The only form of acceptable behaviour is
unquestioning hushed respectful adoration.
How else are its acolytes going to be able
to continue to churn out endless nonsense?
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 10:39 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote]How else are its acolytes going to be able
to continue to churn out endless nonsense?
Paul.
[/quote]
Squeaks the netloon who thinks making a steel
knife is somehow akin to making a lithic biface. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote]
So why would any ape want to walk on two legs? After all there is no real
advantage in doing this. It is far easier for an ape to walk on four legs, so
what evolutionary pressure would be needed to make apes want to stand up and
walk?
Wading and foraging in water is the obvious answer to this.
Exactly. Even after being on 2 legs, there would be pressure to
de-volve into 4-legged or knuckle walking. After all, human
[/quote]
No pressure to go on all fours. None.
[quote]kids all start by walking on 4-legs. It's hard to walk on 2.
And if Ardi is our ancestor, our feet have gotten smaller over time.
Did Ardip had rel.larger feet than Hs?
We really don't need big flat feet to walk: actually walking on your
toes is easier in some respects. There is a trend out for
runners lately where they run on their toes, in a semi-barefoot
state, rather than hitting the ground with their toes. Historically,
runners ran on their toes, and hunters walked on their toes too.
Dancers dance on their toes too. There is far less shock
to the spine that way.
Yes, I've said this many times. It's often assumed that since apith
hindlimbs displayed some features seen in humans & not in apes, these
features indicate bipedalism. Wrong reasoning, of course.
[/quote]
You're both wrong. Humans do not run on their toes.
[quote]Human feet are basically duck-feet ...
Ducks & seals have divergent pedal digital rays, sealions & humans have
parallel ones. All are plantigrade.
duck feet can walk on
land, but they aren't very efficient at it. Our feet aren't very
efficient on land either. There really is no scientific reason to
say "Humans have the feet they evolved to walk and
stand on." ... we have these feet, yes, but WHY do we have
these particular feet? They are curiously inept feet, prone to
fallen arches and tripping and give too much shock to the
spine.
Well-said, Heather.
[/quote]
And wrong. they were good enough to cover the planet.
[quote]Our hands aren't much good either. Too weak to support
our weight well, bones too thin and prone to carpal tunnel.
Yes, but rel.broad. And with rel.long first & last fingers.
A compromise between (ex)swimming & manipulation?
[/quote]
Humans do not live in the water.
[quote]And Ardi feet are even worse. It's hands were the size of it's
shinbone.
Is this so? I'll have a new look at the illustrations.
Very interesting & telling.
As for whether duck feet are better for wading or for swimming
or walking in muck ... if you watch a duck, it's a non-issue.
They do all three, constantly.
Thanks a lot, heather.
Perhaps we should compare swams & ducks & geese with different combinations
of locomotions.
[/quote]
You and Heather both need to learn some basic facts - like how humans run. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com" wrote:
[quote]On Oct 16, 4:02 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 16, 1:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
Yes, I've said this many times.
From Travsky's heads-up catch:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014
"His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals
20,000 years ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved
in a fossilized claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey."
The prey was not clams (you don't chase clams), more like something
the size of a kudu that came down to the water for a drink.
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they
are chasing an animal," he said.
We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 myahttp://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense.
I read through this article, but have not read "Mananthropology." The
question for me continues to be is this about "persistence" hunting or
running for some other reason? If it is persistence hunting, then why
would the hunter need to run faster at the end? Seems to me that if
this was the moment of the kill, he could walk over to the fallen,
exhausted animal.
[/quote]
To ensure another predator/scavenger does not claim it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]
caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 4:02 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if
they are chasing an animal," he said. We can tell that T8
is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 myahttp://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense.
I read through this article, but have not read
"Mananthropology." The question for me continues to
be is this about "persistence" hunting or running for
some other reason? If it is persistence hunting,
then why would the hunter need to run faster at the
end? Seems to me that if this was the moment of the
kill, he could walk over to the fallen, exhausted
animal.
regards calder
Don't you know how rude it is in this
'science' to ask direct logical questions?
The only form of acceptable behaviour is
unquestioning hushed respectful adoration.
How else are its acolytes going to be able
to continue to churn out endless nonsense?
[/quote]
I read it, in an old book in a library when I first got interested in the
subject, about twenty years ago. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7b7f0a6e-ee10-472b-8178-f3fdc2927990 at (no spam) l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 4:02 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 16, 1:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
Yes, I've said this many times.
From Travsky's heads-up catch:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59D0BR20091014
"His conclusions about the speed of Australian aboriginals
20,000 years ago are based on a set of footprints, preserved
in a fossilized claypan lake bed, of six men chasing prey."
The prey was not clams (you don't chase clams), more like something
the size of a kudu that came down to the water for a drink.
"We can assume they are running close to their maximum if they
are chasing an animal," he said.
We can tell that T8 is accelerating toward the end of his tracks."
High arches at 1.5 myahttp://tinyurl.com/b8mvtt
and people running after prey at 20 kya, it all
makes sense.
[/quote]
I read through this article, but have not read "Mananthropology." The
question for me continues to be is this about "persistence" hunting or
running for some other reason? If it is persistence hunting, then why
would the hunter need to run faster at the end? Seems to me that if
this was the moment of the kill, he could walk over to the fallen,
exhausted animal.
regards
calder
_______________________________________________________________
From what I can find out the hunters just pick a hot day and in the heat of
the day they start pushing an animal. At first it can easily out run the
humans but it eventually overheats and they simply jog up and kill it.
The hunters that were studied had a very high success rate but it wasn't all
that popular because it was bleeping hard to do. H. erectus may have been
the first humans able to do it. They may also have been highly dependent on
this hunting method.
We don't know enough about the body of habilis to get very far even as a
WAG. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:27 am
|
|