Marc Verhaegen:
BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas use cliffs.

Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think? Any parallels
you see?

They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such non-adapted
climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But, they have to be adapted for
quadrupedal running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should be adapted
for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running downhill.

BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas use cliffs.

Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think? Any parallels
you see?

They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such non-adapted
climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But, they have to be adapted for
quadrupedal running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should be adapted
for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running downhill.

Also, they have big canines and large groups. I don't think they
climb cliffs in a hurry. They are only using it for sleeping, I believe.
-- Mario

We are cliff-hangers.

And we have our pelvis. There were a tons of papers talking how we
are adapted for toe-off phase of walking. This same toe-off phase is crucial
in climbing vertical surfaces. I am saying that fisrt we were clinbers, then
we were walkers. And you have bipedals with midtarsal break. Which other
bipedal doesn't have midtarsal break? Fusing bones of foot, to make stiff
foot which would bear body weight (in toe-off phase) is an adaptation for
climbing vertical surfaces. Just like other adaptations, like
aduction/abduction ability or the shape of our hand, which is good for
manipulation of stone. Which other bipedal creature has our pelvis, pelvis
which shape is a product of muscles that are used in climbing stairs?

BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas use cliffs.

Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think? Any
parallels you see?

They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such non-adapted
climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But, they have to be adapted for
quadrupedal running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should be adapted
for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running downhill.

Also, they have big canines and large groups. I don't think they
climb cliffs in a hurry. They are only using it for sleeping, I believe.

Do humans have parallel features to cliff-hangers or hill-down-runners,
Mario? --Marc

We are cliff-hangers.

Yes, and savanna-runners, Mario...

Mario Petrinovich:
And we have our pelvis. There were a tons of papers talking how we
are adapted for toe-off phase of walking. This same toe-off phase is
crucial
in climbing vertical surfaces. I am saying that fisrt we were clinbers,
then
we were walkers. And you have bipedals with midtarsal break. Which other
bipedal doesn't have midtarsal break? Fusing bones of foot, to make stiff
foot which would bear body weight (in toe-off phase) is an adaptation for
climbing vertical surfaces. Just like other adaptations, like
aduction/abduction ability or the shape of our hand, which is good for
manipulation of stone. Which other bipedal creature has our pelvis,
pelvis
which shape is a product of muscles that are used in climbing stairs?

Firstly, you have slipped into the near-
universal habit (in this 'discipline') of
assuming that the species consists
only of adult males.

Secondly, one of the most distinctive
characteristics of our taxon is infant
altriciality. No infants are less adapted
for an existence on a cliffs than are
those of humans.

It is
in no way not strange that the top scientiests built their scenarios
around
savanna. Of course, their scenarios were all silly, because they had
impression that just like with all the other animals that were found along
bipedals in such environments, savanna created bipedals, as well.

Secondly, one of the most distinctive
characteristics of our taxon is infant
altriciality. No infants are less adapted
for an existence on a cliffs than are
those of humans.

Oh, and water is simply excellent environment for this. It is known
that animals that live in water are, so to say "less developed", they have
weaker backbone, and things like that. Because in water you can live like
that. Actually, I am even claiming that we "developed" altricity in
precisely such conditions. Which is very logical, and I am surprised how you
don't see that. -- Mario

Marc Verhaegen:

We are cliff-hangers.

Yes, and savanna-runners, Mario... :-D

For 200 million years we had rain forest. We never had a savanna
environment, before. 8Mya emerged savanna environment, with grass and all
its animals. Along with that emerged bipedals. Not before, and not after,
but right at that time. AFAIK, early bipedals are found in open environment.

Also Samburupithecus. But also Ouranopithecus, which has dentition for which
some can easily say that it is of pre-bipedal or early bipedal stage. It is
in no way not strange that the top scientiests built their scenarios around
savanna. Of course, their scenarios were all silly, because they had
impression that just like with all the other animals that were found along
bipedals in such environments, savanna created bipedals, as well. But, this
is impossible situation, because bipedals don't fit. Again, they missed for
just a little. Because it wasn't a savanna that created bipedals, it were
bipedals that created savanna. Well, this certainly sounds like some
exaggeration. But hey, take a look at us, it needs an exaggeration to change
the 200 million years old ecology into something not seen before.
Of course, we were never running in savanna. All the other animals
were running, except us. Baboons run, and have big canines. We don't run,
and we don't have big canines. We didn't have any weapon built in our body,
because all the weapons built in animals' bodies are not good enough for
what we had. We had an external weapon, fire or spears, or whatever. And
fire creates savanna. And we are eating cooked food. This all fits nicely.
And we had both, stone tools and fire BEFORE our brain enlarged. So, the
enlargment of our brain isn't actually responsible for NOTHING. So, the
scale in which our "inventions" are in correlation with the size of our
brain, isn't true. -- Mario

Marc Verhaegen:
BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas use cliffs.

Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think? Any
parallels you see?

They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such non-adapted
climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But, they have to be adapted for
quadrupedal running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should be adapted
for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running downhill.

Also, they have big canines and large groups. I don't think they
climb cliffs in a hurry. They are only using it for sleeping, I believe.

Do humans have parallel features to cliff-hangers or hill-down-runners,
Mario? --Marc

No. I don't see any animal that lives this kind of lifestyle.

Possibly some monkeys that live in hilly regions could have the similar
conditions for downhill running.
Your version of AAT has parallels in Proboscis monkey and
Oreopithecus. None of them show similarity to bipeds because of that,
although they are completly immersed in that kind of lifestyle.

But, Harcourt-Smith/Aiello issued a paper called "Fossils, feet and
the evolution of human bipedal locomotion" (2004). They named only two
current hypotheses that they think are valid today:
"a knuckle-walking ancestor was proposed by Washburn (1967) and has
recently been championed by Richmond and colleagues (Richmond & Strait,
2000; Richmond et al. 2001) on the basis of the wrist morphology of A.
afarensis and other early hominins.

Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) rejected
Washburn's original 'knuckle-walking' hypothesis on the grounds that modern
human hands showed no evidence of a knuckle-walking ancestry.

Both Dainton
(2001) and Lovejoy et al. (2001) have also questioned the modern revival of
the hypothesis by offering different interpretations of the A. afarensis
wrist morphology.
A second current hypothesis for the ape-like locomotor behaviour
immediately antecedent to the evolution of bipedalism is the 'climbing
hypothesis' involving vertical climbing and orthograde clambering
behaviours, but no significant terrestrial locomotion (Fleagle et al. 1981).
Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) and Tuttle (1975, 1981) envisage this ancestor as
a small-bodied climber and arboreal bipedal whereas others (e.g. Stern,
1975; Prost, 1980; Hunt, 1996) argue for a larger-bodied ancestor who used
all four limbs to grasp supports during vertical climbing and suspension.
Most recently, Crompton and colleagues (Crompton et al. 2003; Thorpe &
Crompton, 2004) have argued on the basis of comparative bipedal kinematics
that the antecedent locomotor type would have been more similar to
pronograde clambering as observed in modern orang-utans and unknown in
extant African apes."
(I don't understand this last sentence. I think that orang-utans are
orthograde.)

As is usually the case, they are missing for just a little, but for
just enough to completly miss the target. IOW, those top scientiests are
very close to my scenario. Also, your version of AAT is also very close to
my scenario, and you are also missing for just a little, : ). There was AAT,
only not in shallow, floaded waters, but on sea cliffs.
My scenario involves vertcal climbing of sea cliffs, plunge diving
and swimming, and feeding on small tree fruits, plus downhill running. I
believe that all those things push in the direction of straight-body
bipedality, but the strongest factor is climbing of vertical surfaces, where
you have the need to position the centre of mass of your body (ie., your
ass) right above your feet. -- Mario

That's why
human babies drown so easily, and
will suffer from water-poisoning if
they drink more than a tiny quantity.

Mario:
Marc Verhaegen:
We are cliff-hangers.

Yes, and savanna-runners, Mario... :-D

For 200 million years we had rain forest. We never had a savanna
environment, before. 8Mya emerged savanna environment, with grass and all
its animals. Along with that emerged bipedals. Not before, and not after,
but right at that time. AFAIK, early bipedals are found in open
environment.

Extremely doubtful, Mario:
- Oreopith = swamp forest (bipedal?? parttime wading??)

- Samburupith = part of maxilla IIRC (no evidence of bipedality)

- Ouanopith // robust apiths (wetlands, some KWing features)

If some hominids-pongids (eg, robust apiths, Ouranopith, Gigantopith...)
lived in "savannas", it was in wetlands: parttime wading (probably bipedal
cf. lowland gorillas wading; rarely running & not impossibly on 4 legs
then).

But all this has nothing to with Homo: Ain-Hanech Algeria, Dmanisi
Georgia, Mojokerto Java... 1.8 Ma. --Marc

Mario:
Marc Verhaegen:
BTW, baboons use kopjes in savanna, and geladas use cliffs.

Yes, and both are very different from us, don't you think? Any
parallels you see?

They are baboons, monkeys of open spaces. Even such non-adapted
climbers (primates) can use cliffs. But, they have to be adapted for
quadrupedal running in open spaces. In my scenario, we should be
adapted for fast climbing of cliffs, as well as for running downhill.

Also, they have big canines and large groups. I don't think
they
climb cliffs in a hurry. They are only using it for sleeping, I
believe.

Do humans have parallel features to cliff-hangers or hill-down-runners,
Mario? --Marc

No. I don't see any animal that lives this kind of lifestyle.

IOW, nothing sensible can be said about this.
Hardy's theory OTOH is based on SC fat, fur loss, aligned body etc.

Possibly some monkeys that live in hilly regions could have the similar
conditions for downhill running.
Your version of AAT has parallels in Proboscis monkey and
Oreopithecus. None of them show similarity to bipeds because of that,
although they are completly immersed in that kind of lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscis_Monkey
³While wading, the monkey uses an upright posture, with the females
carrying
infants on their hip. Troops have been filmed continuing to walk upright,
in
single file, along forest trails when they emerge on land, the only
non-human mammal, with the exception of gibbons and giant pangolins, known
to use this form of locomotion for any length of time²

But, Harcourt-Smith/Aiello issued a paper called "Fossils, feet
and
the evolution of human bipedal locomotion" (2004). They named only two
current hypotheses that they think are valid today:
"a knuckle-walking ancestor was proposed by Washburn (1967) and
has
recently been championed by Richmond and colleagues (Richmond & Strait,
2000; Richmond et al. 2001) on the basis of the wrist morphology of A.
afarensis and other early hominins.

On the basis of their belief.
They correctly described some KWing features in anamensis & Lucy (also
described by Leakey in boisei).
But their interpretation is nonsense: there no evidence that the H/P LCA
ever KWed, to the contrary:
- KWing P & G is different, ontogenetically & anatomically (studies of
Inouye).
- Parallel evolution (to the same climatic changes) is to be expected in
strongly resembling spp.
- Not the slightest rudiment of KWing in Hs
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html

Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) rejected
Washburn's original 'knuckle-walking' hypothesis on the grounds that
modern
human hands showed no evidence of a knuckle-walking ancestry.

Correctly.

Both Dainton
(2001) and Lovejoy et al. (2001) have also questioned the modern revival
of
the hypothesis by offering different interpretations of the A. afarensis
wrist morphology.
A second current hypothesis for the ape-like locomotor behaviour
immediately antecedent to the evolution of bipedalism is the 'climbing
hypothesis' involving vertical climbing and orthograde clambering
behaviours, but no significant terrestrial locomotion (Fleagle et al.
1981).
Tuttle & Basmajian (1974) and Tuttle (1975, 1981) envisage this ancestor
as
a small-bodied climber and arboreal bipedal whereas others (e.g. Stern,
1975; Prost, 1980; Hunt, 1996) argue for a larger-bodied ancestor who
used
all four limbs to grasp supports during vertical climbing and suspension.
Most recently, Crompton and colleagues (Crompton et al. 2003; Thorpe &
Crompton, 2004) have argued on the basis of comparative bipedal
kinematics
that the antecedent locomotor type would have been more similar to
pronograde clambering as observed in modern orang-utans and unknown in
extant African apes."
(I don't understand this last sentence. I think that orang-utans
are orthograde.)

Yes, or even upside-down (suspensory = "anti-pronograde").

The hypothesis of vertical wading-climbing early hominids (H, P & G) is
likely IMO.

As is usually the case, they are missing for just a little, but
for
just enough to completly miss the target. IOW, those top scientiests are
very close to my scenario. Also, your version of AAT is also very close
to
my scenario, and you are also missing for just a little, : ). There was
AAT,
only not in shallow, floaded waters, but on sea cliffs.
My scenario involves vertcal climbing of sea cliffs, plunge
diving
and swimming, and feeding on small tree fruits, plus downhill running. I
believe that all those things push in the direction of straight-body
bipedality, but the strongest factor is climbing of vertical surfaces,
where
you have the need to position the centre of mass of your body (ie., your
ass) right above your feet. -- Mario

Mario, no comparative data = no evidence.
There were no cliff-hanging hominids or so. --Marc

This has no direct connections with SC fat and fur loss. But it has
something with aligned body.

In our case, yes, but in general, bipeds are rarely aligned, and aligned
spp are rarely bipedal. Only penguins & humans?
I've never seen cliff-hanging penguins.
And cliff-hanging humans are about as frequent as savanna-running humans.

Algis says that all the apes wade bipedaly. So, it isn't strange
that Proboscis is wading bipedaly, and why shouldn't it? OTOH, gibbons
are bipedal on land, although they don't wade.

The point here is that, of all monkeys, Nasalis is the most bipedal on
land, & also the one that wades most frequently.

I'd rather run in savannas than climbing cliffs, Mario.

Mario, no comparative data = no evidence.
There were no cliff-hanging hominids or so. --Marc

According to data and evidence, hominids didn't live ANY kind of
lifestyle.
There are few theories, and mine is one of them. It is in tune
with the avaible evidence. -- Mario

Everything is in tune with non-existing evidence, Mario. --Marc