| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » We were never knuckle draggers
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| MClark |
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
/Upright walking may not have been uniquely human/
Ann Mcllroy, Toronto Globe and Mail
Early humans didn't start out walking on all fours like gorillas and
then slowly straighten up, a team of British researchers says. Instead,
our ancestors became two-footed while nimbly traversing tree branches
in search of fruit. When ancient rain forests began to thin out, they jumped
down from the trees and started walking on the ground.
"They stayed doing what they were doing in the first place," says Robin
Crompton, with the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology at
the University of Liverpool.
His work, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, is based
on the fossil records and observations of orangutans. It challenges the
widely held notion that upright walking is uniquely human, something that
distinguishes us from our closest relatives, the great apes.
Orangutans do it all the time, Crompton says. They navigate skinny branches
on two feet, grabbing higher branches with their hands to help with their
balance.
They can also walk two-footed on the ground.
Early humans didn't start walking upright so they could wade into water to
find
food, more easily carry their babies or travel more quickly and efficiently
on the
savannah, Crompton says, dismissing competing theories about the evolution
of bipedalism.
Instead, they learned how to walk in trees, and eventually did the same on
the
ground. "Bipedalism is nothing new. It is not the dramatic change that
people
portray it as," he says.
Studying orangutans offered a chance to gather evidence for an alternative
explanation.
Crompton's colleague Susannah Thorpe at the University of Birmingham spent
a year in the Sumatran rain forest observing orangutans. The team concluded
that
two-footed walking helps orangutans survive because it allows them better
access to fruit.
They argue that ancient apes - including our ancestors - probably did the
same
thing and that upright walking offered an advantage once they climbed down
from the trees.
The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more
specialized
at going up and down trees - holding on with both their hands and feet. They
kept
that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk,
supporting
their weight with their hands and feet.
While the new research offers an explanation for why ancient apes could
walk upright, it also complicates the work of paleontologists, who have
used evidence of two-footed walking as key criteria for distinguishing early
human fossils from those of other apes.
"It turns it all on its head, and reopens the debate," said Paul O'Higgins,
a researcher at the University of York in Britain.
/end article/
And a poo-poo to you, too, Peanut Gallery. (You know who you are)
________________________
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yes, that's obvious: knuckle-walking is more derived than bipedalism: in
order to evolve from palm-walking (all primates incL.human infants, except
chimps & gorillas) to knuckle-walking (walking on the dorsal instead of on
the ventral side of the hand), chimps & gorillas needed an intermediary
phase where their hands were +-not used for pronograde locomotion. This
intermediary phase was not arm-hanging (alone): otherwise gibbons & orangs
would knuckle-walk on the ground, but they're palm-walkers. All apes still
walk regularly or occasionally on 2 legs, so the intermediary phase was
(short-legged) bipedalism (probably in combination with climbing arms
overhead).
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
______
Op 03-06-2007 00:50, in artikel
QI2dnVhn2OGsafzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com, MClark <men@work.com> schreef:
Quote: /Upright walking may not have been uniquely human/
Ann Mcllroy, Toronto Globe and Mail
Early humans didn't start out walking on all fours like gorillas and
then slowly straighten up, a team of British researchers says. Instead,
our ancestors became two-footed while nimbly traversing tree branches
in search of fruit. When ancient rain forests began to thin out, they jumped
down from the trees and started walking on the ground.
"They stayed doing what they were doing in the first place," says Robin
Crompton, with the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology at
the University of Liverpool.
His work, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, is based
on the fossil records and observations of orangutans. It challenges the
widely held notion that upright walking is uniquely human, something that
distinguishes us from our closest relatives, the great apes.
Orangutans do it all the time, Crompton says. They navigate skinny branches
on two feet, grabbing higher branches with their hands to help with their
balance.
They can also walk two-footed on the ground.
Early humans didn't start walking upright so they could wade into water to
find
food, more easily carry their babies or travel more quickly and efficiently
on the
savannah, Crompton says, dismissing competing theories about the evolution
of bipedalism.
Instead, they learned how to walk in trees, and eventually did the same on
the
ground. "Bipedalism is nothing new. It is not the dramatic change that
people
portray it as," he says.
Studying orangutans offered a chance to gather evidence for an alternative
explanation.
Crompton's colleague Susannah Thorpe at the University of Birmingham spent
a year in the Sumatran rain forest observing orangutans. The team concluded
that
two-footed walking helps orangutans survive because it allows them better
access to fruit.
They argue that ancient apes - including our ancestors - probably did the
same
thing and that upright walking offered an advantage once they climbed down
from the trees.
The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more
specialized
at going up and down trees - holding on with both their hands and feet. They
kept
that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk,
supporting
their weight with their hands and feet.
While the new research offers an explanation for why ancient apes could
walk upright, it also complicates the work of paleontologists, who have
used evidence of two-footed walking as key criteria for distinguishing early
human fossils from those of other apes.
"It turns it all on its head, and reopens the debate," said Paul O'Higgins,
a researcher at the University of York in Britain.
/end article/
And a poo-poo to you, too, Peanut Gallery. (You know who you are)
________________________
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Report.html
Although the idea that australopithecines could be the relatives of
chimps and gorillas rather than of humans has been put forward by
others previously (Edelstein, 1987; Kleindienst, 1975; Goodman, 1982)
and more recently (Easteal & Herbert, 1997), Verhaegen's reasoning was
considered as idiosyncratic by most of the participants. Prof. Tobias
urged to state that the present-day fossil hominid record consists of
hundreds of different well-documented individuals and that there is
general agreement that australopithecines and Homo have more in common
than australopithecines and Pan/Gorilla.
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Quote: Yes, that's obvious: knuckle-walking is more derived than bipedalism: in
order to evolve from palm-walking (all primates incL.human infants, except
chimps & gorillas) to knuckle-walking (walking on the dorsal instead of on
the ventral side of the hand), chimps & gorillas needed an intermediary
phase where their hands were +-not used for pronograde locomotion. This
intermediary phase was not arm-hanging (alone): otherwise gibbons & orangs
would knuckle-walk on the ground, but they're palm-walkers. All apes still
walk regularly or occasionally on 2 legs, so the intermediary phase was
(short-legged) bipedalism (probably in combination with climbing arms
overhead).
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
______
Op 03-06-2007 00:50, in artikel
QI2dnVhn2OGsafzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com, MClark <men@work.com> schreef:
/Upright walking may not have been uniquely human/
Ann Mcllroy, Toronto Globe and Mail
Early humans didn't start out walking on all fours like gorillas and
then slowly straighten up, a team of British researchers says. Instead,
our ancestors became two-footed while nimbly traversing tree branches
in search of fruit. When ancient rain forests began to thin out, they jumped
down from the trees and started walking on the ground.
"They stayed doing what they were doing in the first place," says Robin
Crompton, with the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology at
the University of Liverpool.
His work, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, is based
on the fossil records and observations of orangutans. It challenges the
widely held notion that upright walking is uniquely human, something that
distinguishes us from our closest relatives, the great apes.
Orangutans do it all the time, Crompton says. They navigate skinny branches
on two feet, grabbing higher branches with their hands to help with their
balance.
They can also walk two-footed on the ground.
Early humans didn't start walking upright so they could wade into water to
find
food, more easily carry their babies or travel more quickly and efficiently
on the
savannah, Crompton says, dismissing competing theories about the evolution
of bipedalism.
Instead, they learned how to walk in trees, and eventually did the same on
the
ground. "Bipedalism is nothing new. It is not the dramatic change that
people
portray it as," he says.
Studying orangutans offered a chance to gather evidence for an alternative
explanation.
Crompton's colleague Susannah Thorpe at the University of Birmingham spent
a year in the Sumatran rain forest observing orangutans. The team concluded
that
two-footed walking helps orangutans survive because it allows them better
access to fruit.
They argue that ancient apes - including our ancestors - probably did the
same
thing and that upright walking offered an advantage once they climbed down
from the trees.
The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more
specialized
at going up and down trees - holding on with both their hands and feet. They
kept
that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk,
supporting
their weight with their hands and feet.
While the new research offers an explanation for why ancient apes could
walk upright, it also complicates the work of paleontologists, who have
used evidence of two-footed walking as key criteria for distinguishing early
human fossils from those of other apes.
"It turns it all on its head, and reopens the debate," said Paul O'Higgins,
a researcher at the University of York in Britain.
/end article/
And a poo-poo to you, too, Peanut Gallery. (You know who you are)
________________________
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc Verhaegen |
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Yes, that's obvious: knuckle-walking is more derived than bipedalism: in
order to evolve from palm-walking (all primates incL.human infants, except
chimps & gorillas) to knuckle-walking (walking on the dorsal instead of on
the ventral side of the hand), chimps & gorillas needed an intermediary
phase where their hands were +-not used for pronograde locomotion. This
intermediary phase was not arm-hanging (alone): otherwise gibbons & orangs
would knuckle-walk on the ground, but they're palm-walkers. All apes still
walk regularly or occasionally on 2 legs, so the intermediary phase was
(short-legged) bipedalism (probably in combination with climbing arms
overhead).
--Marc Verhaegen
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.html
______
Op 03-06-2007 00:50, in artikel
QI2dnVhn2OGsafzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com, MClark <men@work.com> schreef:
/Upright walking may not have been uniquely human/
Ann Mcllroy, Toronto Globe and Mail
Early humans didn't start out walking on all fours like gorillas and
then slowly straighten up, a team of British researchers says. Instead,
our ancestors became two-footed while nimbly traversing tree branches
in search of fruit. When ancient rain forests began to thin out, they jumped
down from the trees and started walking on the ground.
"They stayed doing what they were doing in the first place," says Robin
Crompton, with the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology at
the University of Liverpool.
His work, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, is based
on the fossil records and observations of orangutans. It challenges the
widely held notion that upright walking is uniquely human, something that
distinguishes us from our closest relatives, the great apes.
Orangutans do it all the time, Crompton says. They navigate skinny branches
on two feet, grabbing higher branches with their hands to help with their
balance.
They can also walk two-footed on the ground.
Early humans didn't start walking upright so they could wade into water to
find
food, more easily carry their babies or travel more quickly and efficiently
on the
savannah, Crompton says, dismissing competing theories about the evolution
of bipedalism.
Instead, they learned how to walk in trees, and eventually did the same on
the
ground. "Bipedalism is nothing new. It is not the dramatic change that
people
portray it as," he says.
Studying orangutans offered a chance to gather evidence for an alternative
explanation.
Crompton's colleague Susannah Thorpe at the University of Birmingham spent
a year in the Sumatran rain forest observing orangutans. The team concluded
that
two-footed walking helps orangutans survive because it allows them better
access to fruit.
They argue that ancient apes - including our ancestors - probably did the
same
thing and that upright walking offered an advantage once they climbed down
from the trees.
The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more
specialized
at going up and down trees - holding on with both their hands and feet. They
kept
that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk,
supporting
their weight with their hands and feet.
While the new research offers an explanation for why ancient apes could
walk upright, it also complicates the work of paleontologists, who have
used evidence of two-footed walking as key criteria for distinguishing early
human fossils from those of other apes.
"It turns it all on its head, and reopens the debate," said Paul O'Higgins,
a researcher at the University of York in Britain.
/end article/
And a poo-poo to you, too, Peanut Gallery. (You know who you are)
________________________
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
|
"MClark" <men@work.com> wrote in message
news:QI2dnVhn2OGsafzbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
Quote: /Upright walking may not have been uniquely human/
Ann Mcllroy, Toronto Globe and Mail
Early humans didn't start out walking on all fours like gorillas and
then slowly straighten up, a team of British researchers says. Instead,
our ancestors became two-footed while nimbly traversing tree branches
in search of fruit. When ancient rain forests began to thin out, they
jumped
down from the trees and started walking on the ground.
This is plainly a dumb exposition.
Quote:
"They stayed doing what they were doing in the first place," says Robin
Crompton, with the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology at
the University of Liverpool.
His work, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, is based
on the fossil records and observations of orangutans. It challenges the
widely held notion that upright walking is uniquely human, something that
distinguishes us from our closest relatives, the great apes.
Orangutans do it all the time, Crompton says. They navigate skinny
branches
on two feet, grabbing higher branches with their hands to help with their
balance.
They can also walk two-footed on the ground.
Early humans didn't start walking upright so they could wade into water to
find
food, more easily carry their babies or travel more quickly and
efficiently on the
savannah, Crompton says, dismissing competing theories about the evolution
of bipedalism.
Instead, they learned how to walk in trees, and eventually did the same on
the
ground. "Bipedalism is nothing new. It is not the dramatic change that
people
portray it as," he says.
Studying orangutans offered a chance to gather evidence for an alternative
explanation.
Crompton's colleague Susannah Thorpe at the University of Birmingham spent
a year in the Sumatran rain forest observing orangutans. The team
concluded that
two-footed walking helps orangutans survive because it allows them better
access to fruit.
They argue that ancient apes - including our ancestors - probably did the
same
thing and that upright walking offered an advantage once they climbed down
from the trees.
The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more
specialized
at going up and down trees - holding on with both their hands and feet.
They kept
that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk,
supporting
their weight with their hands and feet.
While the new research offers an explanation for why ancient apes could
walk upright, it also complicates the work of paleontologists, who have
used evidence of two-footed walking as key criteria for distinguishing
early
human fossils from those of other apes.
"It turns it all on its head, and reopens the debate," said Paul
O'Higgins,
a researcher at the University of York in Britain.
/end article/
And a poo-poo to you, too, Peanut Gallery. (You know who you are)
________________________
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lee Olsen |
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote:
This is plainly a dumb exposition.
says one of the dumbest trolls on the net.
From: "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net>
Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21A99@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). You
should read, and I mean read not just skim which seems to be the
thread of
your work here, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones
Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."
Dan Barnes:
"Unfortunately your theory is not in the position where it
can be directly addressed which is why a number of people
have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a
first year university student and I don't see why there
should be an exemption in your case."
Greg Laden:
"Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions; Imagine yourself in a
graduate student seminar asking your professor these questions? Well,
I'm
not your professor, and you're not my student, but it is an
interesting
thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students,
and helpful to them, but if a student came back at my questions or
comments
with this sort of response, I would be very unhappy, and there is no
telling what would happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague
memory
of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things like "No,
you
are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...." etc.! I've given you
the
names of a half dozen scholars who have done important work related to
what
you are interested in. Hit the books, kid!"
Su Solomon:
"Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in any ways much
different
to that which was posted almost a year ago on the old PalAnth List.
Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of
the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature.
I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four hundred words
of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21A99@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo: " It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you
to continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data."
Dan Barnes: "..a number of people have suggested that the best thing
you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and come back
again."
Greg Laden: "Read the stuff. If you have a vague memory
of it, that is not good enough." "Hit the books, kid!"
Su Solomon: "I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four
hundred words of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/d0ad51e933f6c05a?dmode=source&hl=en
http://tinyurl.com/27p6v9
John Wilkins: "I don't wonder at the fact that folk on
sci.bio.evolution despair of
conversation with you, given your sloppy and inexpert approach to
things, Jim. I'm "in the game" alright, the game of philosophy and
history of science (it's my PhD topic). You aren't even able to cheer
the game, because you are watching the kids in the sandlot."
Date: 9 Nov 2005 17:36:26
ID: <1131586586.566548.178940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
http://tinyurl.com/2zjhz6
Jason: "The reason I *don't* debate your hypothesis is that I don't
find you coherant enough to start a 'debate' with and since you don't
really act like someone who cares to do any more than declare his
brillance and leave it as a declaration. I *don't* debate you because
your reaction to disputes is to claim that what you have is
indisputable even when someone proposes a real dispute. I *don't*
debate you because I've found your tendency to redefine terminology
that has real meaning to be somewhere between annoying and psychotic.
You don't seem to recognize when you do this. You call me an 'evasive
jackass' as if that makes me willing to entertain a dickhead like you." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| KLM |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
MClark wrote:
Quote: /Upright walking may not have been uniquely human/
Ann Mcllroy, Toronto Globe and Mail
Early humans didn't start out walking on all fours like gorillas and
then slowly straighten up, a team of British researchers says. Instead,
our ancestors became two-footed while nimbly traversing tree branches
in search of fruit. When ancient rain forests began to thin out, they jumped
down from the trees and started walking on the ground.
"They stayed doing what they were doing in the first place," says Robin
Crompton, with the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology at
the University of Liverpool.
His work, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, is based
on the fossil records and observations of orangutans. It challenges the
widely held notion that upright walking is uniquely human, something that
distinguishes us from our closest relatives, the great apes.
Orangutans do it all the time, Crompton says. They navigate skinny branches
on two feet, grabbing higher branches with their hands to help with their
balance.
They can also walk two-footed on the ground.
Early humans didn't start walking upright so they could wade into water to
find
food, more easily carry their babies or travel more quickly and efficiently
on the
savannah, Crompton says, dismissing competing theories about the evolution
of bipedalism.
Instead, they learned how to walk in trees, and eventually did the same on
the
ground. "Bipedalism is nothing new. It is not the dramatic change that
people
portray it as," he says.
Studying orangutans offered a chance to gather evidence for an alternative
explanation.
Crompton's colleague Susannah Thorpe at the University of Birmingham spent
a year in the Sumatran rain forest observing orangutans. The team concluded
that
two-footed walking helps orangutans survive because it allows them better
access to fruit.
They argue that ancient apes - including our ancestors - probably did the
same
thing and that upright walking offered an advantage once they climbed down
from the trees.
The ancestors of chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, became more
specialized
at going up and down trees - holding on with both their hands and feet. They
kept
that same posture on the ground, which is why they often knuckle-walk,
supporting
their weight with their hands and feet.
While the new research offers an explanation for why ancient apes could
walk upright, it also complicates the work of paleontologists, who have
used evidence of two-footed walking as key criteria for distinguishing early
human fossils from those of other apes.
"It turns it all on its head, and reopens the debate," said Paul O'Higgins,
a researcher at the University of York in Britain.
/end article/
And a poo-poo to you, too, Peanut Gallery. (You know who you are)
quaint! useful as a sac of ten day old burgers! dum,ber than monkies.
Quote: ________________________
"For whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly
hath neither job nor hobby." II Mumbleonians 4:19 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rich Travsky |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Quote:
Yes, that's obvious: knuckle-walking is more derived than bipedalism: in
order to evolve from palm-walking (all primates incL.human infants, except
chimps & gorillas) to knuckle-walking (walking on the dorsal instead of on
the ventral side of the hand), chimps & gorillas needed an intermediary
phase where their hands were +-not used for pronograde locomotion. This
intermediary phase was not arm-hanging (alone): otherwise gibbons & orangs
would knuckle-walk on the ground, but they're palm-walkers. All apes still
walk regularly or occasionally on 2 legs, so the intermediary phase was
(short-legged) bipedalism (probably in combination with climbing arms
overhead).
Marc's explanation of how an obligate biped becomes a quadruped:
"why not move on 4 legs"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:09 pm
|
|