Endurance running &/or waterside locomotions

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » Endurance running &/or waterside locomotions

Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Author

Message

Marc Verhaegen

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:22 pm

Guest

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.
Daniel Lieberman: On the left there is a Neanderthal, it's a Neanderthal
from France, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, on the right is an ancestor of very
early modern humans from Israel actually in our collection, his name is
Skhul 5. In the middle is actually a quarter of a modern human skull. I'm
interested in what makes the human body look the way it does, and it's hard
to argue with the fact that we're most different above the neck than below
the neck, so we have very, very bizarre heads.
Robyn Williams: Very bizarre heads...did you know you had a bizarre head?
What's weird about it? Daniel Lieberman is an anthropology professor at
Harvard, so he must know what he's talking about. He's even scored the cover
of the journal Nature with research about 'running man', although, as you'll
hear, some scientists think swimming was as important in our evolutionary
history. Anyway, running and that weird skull. Daniel Lieberman.
Daniel Lieberman: Running is one of my passions, and actually I got started
being interested in running because I was interested in how you held your
head still when you run, because humans have a problem. If you think about
most animals, when they run they have a head in which the neck sticks off
the back of the head. It's a cantilevered head, and so if you watch a dog or
a horse running it's head essentially remains almost fixed like a missile,
and the neck flexes and extends, keeping the head in place. It's almost as
if the body is moving on the head.
But humans, because we became bipeds about six million years ago, have a
very odd configuration in which our neck points vertically downwards, not
off the back of the skull but down the middle of the skull. We have a very
short neck, so we're basically like pogo-sticks. So when humans run, our
heads bounce up and down and there's really nothing we can do to prevent the
vertical oscillations of the head. But also because the head is unbalanced,
every time you land, the head jiggles forward really fast, it pitches
forward, and those pitching motions can cause loss of visual stability when
you run, which means you can have loss of body stability. So I'm interested
in how it is that we managed to solve this engineering problem posed by our
evolutionary history.
Robyn Williams: Where can you see those solutions in the rest of the body?
Daniel Lieberman: That's something we're working on right now and it's
unpublished. We've found a number of mechanisms which we think are
important. One of them, surprisingly, is that you use your arms to stabilise
your head. When you run you pump your arms opposite to your legs, we all
know that, and the reason for that is that when you're running your body is
in the air for part of stance. You have an aerial phase in a run, not in a
walk, and think about that phase; when you're in the air one leg is
scissoring forward and the other is scissoring back and that will create
angular momentum around a vertical axis of the body, so you'll rotate in
space. So you pump your arms opposite to your legs and that creates reverse
angular momentum. But it turns out your arms do another thing and that is
that...at least this is what we think, we're still working on the
experiments, we haven't published this yet...but as you pump your arms, the
arms are connected to your head by a single little strap of muscle in your
neck called the cleidocranial trapezius, and we found that that muscle turns
on before the food hits the ground on just the stance side. So the trailing
arm, the arm that's behind the leg on the side that's hitting the ground
turns on, and as the head pitches forward the arm falls down, and the mass
of the arm is connected to the head by this muscle and a ligament we have in
the back of our head called the nuchal ligament which is not present in
chimpanzees but evolved independently in humans and other animals good at
running, and that essentially creates an elastic musculoskeletal connection
between the inertial mass of the arm and the inertial mass of the head,
stabilising the head, keeping it from pitching forward too fast.
Robyn Williams: And that's why I find it so difficult when I'm running down
the beach and picking up rubbish, as I sometimes do because I've got these
tendencies to hate plastic bags on the nice pristine beach...you collect all
these, and if you've got too many you can't move your arms so much and
running becomes really rather difficult.
Daniel Lieberman: It is, and we have fun in our lab, we make people do all
kinds of bizarre things; holding cups in their arms and strapping their arms
as if they were in a straightjacket and various other such things, and it
really messes up the ability to stabilise your head, and it becomes very
perceptible quickly, and it's a challenge.
Robyn Williams: Apart from the arms, what other clues are there?
Daniel Lieberman: We have features literally from our toes to our heads that
help us run well. We have short toes...it turns out that long toes don't
really matter so much when you're walking, and you can have much longer toes
and it wouldn't really impede your ability to walk well, but as soon as you
start running you produce really high forces on the joints between your toes
and the metatarsals. Really long toes actually have incredible torques
around that joint and are very problematic when running. So we have
shortened up our toes in order to become good runners and it doesn't really
affect our walking.
We have specialisations in the arches of our feet, our legs are filled with
tendons. Tendons are elastic energy storage devices, and when you walk you
don't really use them for energy storage. In fact, you don't need tendons in
your legs at all in order to walk, and chimpanzees and gorillas completely
lack tendons in their legs. The Achilles tendon in a chimp is maybe half a
centimetre long. As soon as you start running you top using your legs like a
pendulum, you use it like a spring, and of course the major springs in your
legs are the Achilles and the iliotibial tract and all these other tendons
in your leg. So those tendons, which we think evolved around two million
years ago, are really important features that are absolutely critical,
enabling us to be good runners rather than walkers. We have other features
in our hips. We have a large gluteus maximus. We published a fun paper a few
years ago which showed...
Robyn Williams: You mean 'bum'?
Daniel Lieberman: The bum, the rear end, I'm not quite sure what's impolite
in Australia. But your listeners can do the following experiment, just to
walk around the room and clutch their bums and you can feel as you walk that
really nothing happens, it stays flabby and soft, but as soon as you start
running it starts clenching up and contracting with every stride. What
that's doing actually is preventing your whole trunk from pitching forward
each time your body lands. I could go on...there are features in the spine,
there are features in the neck, there are features in the head, we have very
sensitive vestibular systems. And importantly many of these features would
make us incredibly good long-distance runners, so we're terrible sprinters
but great long-distance runners...really have no role whatsoever in walking.
So that's really compelling evidence that there was natural selection
operating to make us good at long-distance endurance running in our history.
Robyn Williams: So what was really happening on the plain or wherever we
were when that transition took place?
Daniel Lieberman: The key thing here is hunting. So imagine you're a hungry
Homo erectus two million years ago out on the African savannah. Of course at
this time, around 1.7, 1.8 or 2 million years ago, the savannahs are really
expanding, the forests are shrinking, and there's all this food available
and all sorts of ungulates sitting out on the African savannah. Furthermore,
these hominids have small teeth and big brains, and they have to feed those
big brains and bigger bodies with the smaller teeth. What's a hungry hominid
going to do? Well, we know from the archaeological record that they're
hunting. We have archaeological sites in which the bones are smashed up and
there are cut marks, and in some of these sites it's clear that they didn't
scavenge these bones, they hunted them.
The problem is that projectile technologies, a spearhead, a stone point
which would fix on to the end of a spear, weren't invented until about
200,000 or 300,000 years ago. So that means for most of human evolution, for
two million years or so, our ancestors had noting more lethal than a
sharpened wooden stick or a club in order to kill animals. So this is where
running comes into play, endurance running, not sprinting but endurance
running, because humans, because of all these abilities plus the ability to
sweat very well and their loss of fur means that we can run at incredibly
high speed compared to other mammals at an endurance gait.
So a human being can run...most humans, even a middle-aged professor like me
can run at above the speed at which most mammals switch from a trot to a
gallop. Why is this important? Because when a quadruped gallops it can't
pant, and that's how quadrupeds cool, they cool by panting, short little
shallow breaths which they intersperse with long deep breaths where they get
oxygen into their lungs. So once you make an animal start to gallop...so you
can take your dog on a run and torture it if you want to, but once you make
the dog gallop it can't pant, and that means that if it's hot, within about
10 to 15 minutes it will start to overheat and go into hyperthermia, which
is why you should never take your dog for a long run on a hot day,
particularly if you're making the dog gallop.
So what hominid hunters did, I think, is what some hunters still do in
various parts of the world, which is to chase an animal, run it above its
trot-gallop transition, which we can easily do, and the animal will of
course sprint away and hide, and you track it and you chase it again, make
it gallop, and the faster you can catch it, find it, make it gallop again,
the quicker you will drive that animal into hyperthermia. It usually takes
about 10 to 15 kilometres worth of running, so not a really enormous amount,
in the heat, and any human armed with just a club or a sharpened wooden
stick can run an animal into hyperthermia and have dinner without any
danger. You don't have to get up close to the animal and spear it or risk
being kicked or gored or whatever. So I believe that the ability to run long
distances was essential in our evolutionary history because it enabled us to
become carnivores, and in fact it enabled us to become diurnal carnivores,
which is a very special thing.
Robyn Williams: Which makes you think about the modern human beings who
don't go on these runs. What do you feel about human beings with all these
capacities to run who sit on their bums all day?
Daniel Lieberman: Actually we're an interesting species because we're
actually well evolved to be aerobic athletes. So my dog can laze around the
house all day long and rarely go on much exercise and occasionally sprint
around the yard or go for a short run in the park and be totally healthy and
quite happy, but humans really are obligatorily required to do a aerobic
exercise in order to stay healthy, and I think that has deep roots in our
evolutionary history. We're not just designed for walking, we're also
designed for running, and think of the most popular sports in the world;
football, soccer, and all sorts of other sports, it's basically running with
the ball. If there's any magic bullet to make human beings healthy it's to
run. In fact a lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us
are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet
weak, cause us to over-pronate, give us knee problems. Until 1972 when the
modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled
shoes, had strong feet and had much lower incidents of knee injuries. I
think we can all take a page from hunter-gatherers and start running in
sandals or something like that and have healthier hearts, bodies, feet and
knees and everything else.
Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.
Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,
obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.
Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.
Robyn Williams: Nonetheless, modern human beings without question can run
and have run, and so you're suggesting that it's a matter of degree that
modern humans became more like Professor Lieberman describes, but earlier on
there was far more water involved.
Stephen Munro: That's our opinion, yes. Humans can run long distances today
but we need to have water available. So we either have to carry the water,
we have to have somebody supplying us water along the way, if you look at
people who run marathons. Even though modern humans are capable runners, we
wouldn't say that that was part of the evolution two million years ago Š
things seem to indicate that there was a difference in the type of
locomotion, and what we're suggesting is that they perhaps waded...which
would certainly account for the bipedal features that you see in Homo
erectus...
Robyn Williams: I see, the two-legged person comes in here.
Stephen Munro: Absolutely, when you're wading in water, for a primate, often
you will see primates wade on two legs. So you have gorillas, chimpanzees,
proboscis monkeys, baboons, when they're in water of a certain depth they
will be able to get up onto their two legs and wade. So we're suggesting
that wading may have had something to do with the bipedal features that we
see in modern humans, but then also swimming and underwater foraging would
mean that the body would need to be more linear, so this could account for
the linear build and the unusual bipedal posture that we see with humans.
Robyn Williams: Would the water bodies have been back in Africa? What was
the landscape like; lots of lakes and rivers or what?
Stephen Munro: Certainly if we look at the Turkana Basin there's a large
river that runs through there in the Pleistocene which is when we see Homo
erectus or ergaster emerging. So the Rift Valley is full of rivers and
lakes. Olduvai Gorge is another one that would have been a big lake. But in
Indonesia we have the earliest Homo erectus fossil at a place called
Mojokerto and that's a coastal delta. So not only do we find Homo erectus
remains in Africa, in Pakistan there's a place called Pabbi Hills, this was
on a large river. The earliest Homo artefacts that we have in Northern
Europe are in a place called Pakefield, and this was on a coastal plain, a
river running into the sea. In the Middle East, Ubeidiya and the Jordan
Valley and Erq el-Ahmar, these are lakes and rivers which was once part of
the Mediterranean. So predominately rivers, lake basins which are part of a
basin system, or coasts themselves. So we basically see early Homo
dispersing around coasts and being able to move up rivers and colonising
inland drainage systems, including lake basins and rivers themselves.
Robyn Williams: Presumably there's some evidence with nutrition because
there's an awful lot of background of not just bivalves, molluscs, but also
fish in human history.
Stephen Munro: Absolutely. Michael Crawford and Leigh Broadhurst and others,
Stephen Cunnane, have done a lot of work on the omega-3 fatty acids which
are essential for brain growth in all vertebrates, but the extraordinary
brain growth that we see in humans, almost tripling the size of the brain
over two million years or so, they point to the best source of these, the
most abundant source of these fatty acids are in aquatic food resources
because the primary source of these is fresh water and marine planktons and
algae. So primary consumers of these, including fish and shellfish, have
abundant amounts of these fatty acids. So this is one idea, that this could
have led to the increase in the brain size that we see in the genus Homo
over a long period. However, that in itself isn't enough to explain it.
There are a number of different characteristics or features that would need
to be met, so it's a complex situation, the development of the brain. But
certainly having a ready source of nutritious foods that have the proper
omega-3 fatty acid in them would be an advantage, so we certainly see that
as being...
Robyn Williams: As you say, you anthropologists and archaeologists are
famous for your disputations about is it the hobbit or is it not, is it
water or is it not, where did we come from, is it Africa or is it
dispersed...good vigorous debate, but in this case, in terms of the water
history, what would be the clincher, what do you need to find if you go
fossicking?
Stephen Munro: That's a good question because as far as we're concerned
there is enough evidence, but certainly more hominid fossils and artefacts
found in association with perhaps coastal situations would be kind of a
clincher, I guess, but even then...unfortunately finding shell middens or
finding coastal sites is going to be difficult because most coastal sites
from the Pleistocene are now under water, the sea levels are at one of their
highest points now. And also coasts aren't particularly good places for
fossil preservation to occur. But I think what we should be doing is taking
all new data that becomes available and keeping an open mind as to the
different possibilities, trying to place it within contexts. All I would ask
people to do is to keep in mind the possibility that water may have played a
more important role in human evolution than has generally been accepted
until now.
Robyn Williams: So there we are, running versus swimming. I suspect they'll
find it's a lot of both. Steve Munro at the ANU in Canberra, and before him,
Professor Daniel Lieberman at Harvard.

Guests
Daniel Lieberman
Professor of Biological Anthropology Harvard University Massachusetts USA
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/danlhome.html
<http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/danlhome.html>
Stephen Munro
School of Archaeology and Anthropology ANU Canberra
http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/students/munro.asp
<http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/students/munro.asp>
Presenter
Robyn Williams
Producer
David Fisher

Quote:

To: AA50@yahoogroups.com
From: algis@kuliukas.com
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:31:27 +0000
Subject: [AA50] Re: Endurance running discussion

--- In AA50@yahoogroups.com, "smunro582000" <smunro58@...> wrote:

Wow!
Congratulations, Stephen!
You came over extremely authoratatively and clearly. Quite brilliant
in fact.

Good on ya!

All the best

Algis

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Daniel Lieberman is interested in what makes the human body look
the
way it does. His passion is running. There are features over our
whole body which help us to run well. One is the toes. Short toes
help running. Tendons in the leg act as springs. These evolved
around
2 million year ago. The bum tenses with every stride, preventing
the
trunk from pitching forward. There are features in the spine, neck
and head. These all make us good long-distance runners but have no
use in walking. Daniel Lieberman suggests we were good hunters on
the
savannas of Africa.
Steven Munro challenges the endurance running model of man. He says
water played a more important part in human evolution. Early humans
foraged on land, in trees and in shallow water. They lived in many
coastal settings and colonised inland lake basins and rivers.

Guests
Daniel Lieberman
Professor of Biological Anthropology Harvard University
Massachusetts
USA
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/danlhome.html
Stephen Munro
School of Archaeology and Anthropology ANU Canberra
http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/students/munro.asp
Presenter
Robyn Williams
Producer
David Fisher

Click here Search for local singles online @ Lavalife.
<http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2
Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3
Den%5FAU%26a%3D30290&_t=764581033&_r=email_taglines_Search_OCT07&_m=EXT>

__._,_.___
Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/message/207;_ylc=X3oDMTMzMDFybzh1BF9TAzk
3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRtc2dJZAMyMjUEc2VjA2Z
0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQyBHRwY0lkAzIwNw--> (4) Reply
(via web post)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwN2ZsYzRoBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz
E0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRtc2dJZAMyMjUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbG
sDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy?act=reply&messageNum=225> | Start a new
topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjc5c2o4BF9TAzk3MzU5Nz
E0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW
1lAzEyMDcwMTI0NDI->

Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb25nZjU5BF9TAzk3Mz
U5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtc2dzBH
N0aW1lAzEyMDcwMTI0NDI-> | Files
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMzRndWhlBF9TAzk3MzU5N
zE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzd
GltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy> | Photos
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWdncGlwBF9TAzk3MzU5
NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwaG90BHN0
aW1lAzEyMDcwMTI0NDI-> | Links
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJncjRxNDM2BF9TAzk3MzU5N
zE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzd
GltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy> | Database
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJkOTRvMmw4BF9TAzk3Mz
U5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNkYgRzdG
ltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy> | Polls
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMTgzbmFpBF9TAzk3MzU5N
zE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xscwRzd
GltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy> | Members
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMGtjajEyBF9TAzk3MzU
5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtYnJzBHN
0aW1lAzEyMDcwMTI0NDI-> | Calendar
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOGE1MXBiBF9TAzk3Mz
U5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNjYWwEc3
RpbWUDMTIwNzAxMjQ0Mg-->

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDhuMXVtBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxO
Dk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTIwNzAxMjQ0M
g-->
Change settings via the Web
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJncTNtYmQyBF9TAzk3NDc2NT
kwBGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdG
ltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy> (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest
<mailto:AA50-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest> |
Switch format to Traditional
<mailto:AA50-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format:
Traditional>
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcDhnYjdtBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGd
ycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTI
wNzAxMjQ0Mg--> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> | Unsubscribe
<mailto:AA50-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=>

Recent Activity
*
* 2
*
* New Members
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZzVybW02BF9TAzk3MzU
5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwR
zdGltZQMxMjA3MDEyNDQy>
*
Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AA50;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbTMxYmk3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGd
ycElkAzIxODk3ODY0BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA4Mjk0NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE
yMDcwMTI0NDI->

Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13o1q757f/M=493064.12016257.12445664.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705082946:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1207019642/L=/B=XVgJAUJe5tI-/J=1207012442
745604/A=4507179/R=0/SIG=12de4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http:/
/finance.yahoo.com/personal->

Guides, news,

advice more.

Weight Loss Group

on Yahoo! Groups
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13p2btpap/M=493064.12016300.12445692.11323196/D
=groups/S=1705082946:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1207019642/L=/B=XlgJAUJe5tI-/J=120701244
2745604/A=5170419/R=0/SIG=11b5gu1oe/*http://new.groups.yahoo.com/specialKgro
up>

Get support and

make friends online.

Yahoo! Groups

w/ John McEnroe
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=13ontli24/M=493064.12016283.12445687.8674578/D=
groups/S=1705082946:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1207019642/L=/B=X1gJAUJe5tI-/J=1207012442
745604/A=5202322/R=0/SIG=11aijbghb/*http://new.groups.yahoo.com/allbrangroup

Quote:

Join the All-Bran

Day 10 Club.

..

__,_._,___

------ Einde van doorgestuurd bericht

caldervangogh@gmail.com

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:22 pm

Guest

On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.
Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,
obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.
Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.
Is this guy a colleague of Algis?

regards
--calder

<snip>

Rich Travsky

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:35 pm

Guest

"caldervangogh@gmail.com" wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.
Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,
obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.
Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game? The emphasis is VERY clear.

caldervangogh@gmail.com

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:23 pm

Guest

On Apr 7, 12:35 am, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

Quote:

"caldervang...@gmail.com" wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.
Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,
obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.
Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.
Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example. Predators
know water holes are great places to find game. This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting. How many tools are needed for a shellfish?
None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit. How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game? The emphasis is VERY clear.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed. and besides, predators usually drink a bit of water too.
(compare to chimp drinking behaviour... sponges and etc.)
The toolkit is relatively recent. Or at least the stone toolkit. As
generalists, "we" probably tried to eat just about everything, and
used our new tools to obtain it... and ended up favoring the large
animal meats. This only accounts for about the last 2.5 million years
of evolution; what were the apiths up to? Oh, by the way, it is
plausible IMHO that shellfish eating required at least some sort of
hammer tool. And that women may have been the main ones using such a
tool.

Ian Tattersall has a nice discussion about stone tools starting on
page 91 of his book "The Monkey in the Mirror."

What was of interest in this post was that the quality of the argument
was improving.
regards
c

Lee Olsen

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:53 am

Guest

On Apr 8, 11:14 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Quote:

Savanna Fantast:

Name calling, only argument you ever made.

Quote:

No huge emphasis, my boy.

Pervert.

Quote:

How many tools are needed for a shellfish?

Tool use by animals = hard-object feeding.

Liar.

Quote:

No reason why human ancestors must be an exception.
Capuchins use stones & shells to open oysters.
Sea otter are "the" tool-using animals.

Liar. This imbecile is too stupid to look up tthe word "tool" in a
good antho dictionary.

Quote:

Homo reached Java & Flores: do you really think they never ate shellfish??

Prove it wetloon. We have been waiting 10 years for your imagination
to be cited.

Quote:

None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit.

??
They even used seashells to butcher bovids, my boy.
Why not inform a little bit??
K Choi & D Driwantoro 2007 "Shell tool use by early members of Homo erectus
in Sangiran, central Java, Indonesia: cut mark evidence"
J.archaeol.Sci.34:48-58.

ROFL, that's only a million years after Gona. Humans used rock to make
tools, it doesn't mean they were eating rocks. Don't give up your day
job.

http://www.local6.com/news/4849334/detail.html

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:34 am

On Mar 31, 6:31 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"
<caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

This statement is lunacy. Bipedalism emerged while hominids still
needed to stay close to trees and other hominids to survive
predation.

Quote:

Stephen Munro at the Australian National University in Canberra has a sort
of contrary view of our history. Not necessarily running along plains having
left the forests. Stephen, how do you see us evolving?
Stephen Munro: The problem I have with the endurance running model is
basically the Homo erectus was different to Homo sapiens in some parts of
the skeleton which make it unfavourable for endurance running. For example,
they had very thick bones in the skeleton; both the cranium and the post
cranium were very thick. So I and a number of my colleagues follow some
ideas that have been around for close to half a century now that water
played a more important role in human evolution and that humans are
basically evolved from animals that were well adapted to climbing,

Duh. It's obvious what role water played. In a monsoon climate trees
only survive at localities that have water in the vicinity. Early
hominid (both Apith and HE) resided in treed habitat. It's that
simple. These were the localities in which they established a
communal setting. And the defended the resources in this locality
with rocks and stick (against food competitors) so that these
resources would be available during the dry season.

Quote:

obviously, as we share that with chimps, gorillas and orang-utans, but
humans became better adapted to living near the waterside, so we were able
to forage, not only on land and in trees but also in shallow waters, by
wading but also by foraging underwater, which means swimming and diving.
Robyn Williams: The aquatic ape. I'm reminded of Elaine Morgan and some
wonderful stories. She's been on The Science Show talking about how we've
got various characteristics similar to elephants; we cry and we've got
subcutaneous fat, all sorts of things. Do you have us living as she did in
and under the water or simply wading around close to it?
Stephen Munro: As far as Elaine Morgan's ideas go, I wouldn't say that she
has humans living permanently under the water, I think she certainly would
follow the idea that humans spent time in the water foraging for food. As
far as I'm concerned they spent some part of perhaps every day or some part
of the year foraging in the water for food. So that would be shellfish and
aquatic plants. These are foods that don't swim away from you, you don't
have to chase them, it's just a matter of gathering them, but you have to go
under the water often to collect these things. So not deep water but
probably shallow waters.

Hominids, especially early homids, were primarily frugivorous and
vegetarian. Did they occasionally forage in water. Yeah, but so
what. Did they occasionally venture out into treeless habitat. Yeah,
but, again, so what.

Quote:

Robyn Williams: Rather less energetic than chasing across the Serengeti with
a beast in front of you for kilometres on end, you can simply dive under and
pick it up.

Both of these scenarios are nonsense.

Quote:

Stephen Munro: Exactly, and in fact when you look at modern humans, of
course we can run long distances but people don't generally do that to
gather their food. If you look at populations all around the world,
shellfish and fishing are very popular. Probably meat eating is something
that has evolved, in our opinion, through the consumption originally of more
waterside-type foods, and there is evidence certainly in the archaeological
record of consumption of large mammals, but these haven't necessarily been
chased down and hunted. Large mammals often live and die near water, so they
could be easily scavenged without the requirement of actually running after
them over the hot arid plains where there were considerable numbers of
carnivores, for example, who were a lot better adapted to living in those
areas. Humans cool down when they're in terrestrial settings by sweating,
but sweating is not a very good way of cooling down unless you've got a
ready source of available water.

This is the most coherent statement I have seen of this concept....
that we may have started eating meat because it was scavenged
waterside.
Is this guy a colleague of Algis?

Quote:

regards
--calder

snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:42 am

On Apr 6, 9:35 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

Quote:

During the dry season, yes.

Quote:

This does not make either the
prey or the predator aquatic. What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting.

Fishing too, but so what.

Quote:

How many tools are needed for a shellfish?

Stupid question. Lots of tools are needed for fishing. And shellfish
are so rare in this habitat that it's absurd to even mention them.

Quote:

None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit.

Motivation for a tool kit? This is such a silly notion. Hominids use
tools as a result of the fact that they evolved consciousness and
intellect. And consciousness and intellect are the result of group/
communal selection (the details of which are explained in my
hypothesis). Tools would be useful in all types of habitat.

Quote:

How many cave
paintings show fish versus big game? The emphasis is VERY clear.

The emphasis exists only in your imagination.

- Hide quoted text -

Quote:

- Show quoted text -

Lee Olsen

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:15 am

Guest

On Apr 8, 12:34 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 31, 6:31 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.

This statement is lunacy. Bipedalism emerged while hominids still
needed to stay close to trees and other hominids to survive
predation.

You idiot, it has been cited a dozen times or more that the issue
today is how ENDURANT or load-carrying, bipedalism evolved, not A'pith
bipedalism. What part of that are you too stupid to understand? Tell
me something dumbo, do you think you walk exactly as Lucy? Since you
see just fine at night, you probably do.

<snip rest of ignorant comments>

"The Turkana boy tells us that early H. erectus, besides being a
tall biped,
had arms and legs proportioned like a modern human's. For his height,
his
arms were not as long as those of Lucy, Lucy's Child or so far as we
know,
any other prior hominid. He lacked the apish details that, in earlier
bipeds,
suggest occasional tree climbing. The legs and hip bones of Homo
erectus
were buttressed by tremendous thickness and bulges, which denotes a
body geared toward endurance walking and running. An exclusive pact
had
been made with the terrestrial realm, and the boy's legs were
equipped to
cover ground in strides protracted in both length and hours."
Richard Potts from Humanity's Descent

W.-J. Wang and R. H. Crompton 2004
The role of load-carrying in the evolution of modern body
proportions
J. Anat. 204 pp417-430

"Our hypothesis
that there is a direct relationship between the acquisition
of modern postcranial proportions and increased
ranging/transport distances at around 1.8-1.5 Ma appears
to be borne out, although other selective factors, such
as thermoregulatory influences (see Ruff, 1991; Wheeler,
1992) and adaptations for throwing (see Dunsworth
et al. 2003), are likely to have played an important
(although probably interdependent) role."

Holger Preuschoft

Mechanisms for the acquisition of habitual bipedality:
are there biomechanical reasons for the acquisition of
upright bipedal posture?
J. Anat. 204 pp363-384

"Once bipedality has been acquired, development of typical human
morphology can readily be explained as adaptations for energy saving
over long distances. A paper in this volume
shows that load-carrying ability was enhanced from australopithecines
to Homo ergaster
(early African H. erectus),supporting an earlier proposition that load-
carrying was an essential factor in human evolution."

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:34 pm

On Apr 8, 1:15 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 8, 12:34 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

On Mar 31, 6:31 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com"

caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:22 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2198911.htm

Transcript
This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot
guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and
occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

snip running part for now

Robyn Williams: That was Daniel Lieberman who is professor of anthropology
at Harvard talking about 'running man', and we've got a picture there of
human beings or their predecessors on the plains running large distances and
having the skeleton that kind of suits it.

This statement is lunacy. Bipedalism emerged while hominids still
needed to stay close to trees and other hominids to survive
predation.

You idiot, it has been cited a dozen times or more that the issue
today

"The issue today . . .?"

Quote:

is how ENDURANT or load-carrying, bipedalism evolved, not A'pith
bipedalism.

Endurant bipedalism? Why in the world do you think this is
significant? Is your reason a secret? Go ahead, provide your
scenario you retard. What are you waiting for?

Quote:

What part of that are you too stupid to understand? Tell
me something dumbo, do you think you walk exactly as Lucy? Since you
see just fine at night, you probably do.

Uh . . . er. What's your point. Why would you even bother with these
speculations if they don't bring us any closer to understanding what
is most plainly distinctive about hominids: our cultural and social
adaptations.

Quote:

snip rest of ignorant comments

"The Turkana boy tells us that early H. erectus, besides being a
tall biped,
had arms and legs proportioned like a modern human's. For his height,
his
arms were not as long as those of Lucy,

Yeah, so?

Quote:

Lucy's Child or so far as we
know,
any other prior hominid. He lacked the apish details that, in earlier
bipeds,
suggest occasional tree climbing. The legs and hip bones of Homo
erectus
were buttressed by tremendous thickness and bulges, which denotes a
body geared toward endurance walking and running. An exclusive pact
had
been made with the terrestrial realm, and the boy's legs were
equipped to
cover ground in strides protracted in both length and hours."

Quote:

Richard Potts from Humanity's Descent

W.-J. Wang and R. H. Crompton 2004
The role of load-carrying in the evolution of modern body
proportions
J. Anat. 204 pp417-430

"Our hypothesis
that there is a direct relationship between the acquisition
of modern postcranial proportions and increased
ranging/transport distances at around 1.8-1.5 Ma appears
to be borne out, although other selective factors, such
as thermoregulatory influences (see Ruff, 1991; Wheeler,
1992) and adaptations for throwing (see Dunsworth
et al. 2003), are likely to have played an important
(although probably interdependent) role."

Holger Preuschoft

Mechanisms for the acquisition of habitual bipedality:
are there biomechanical reasons for the acquisition of
upright bipedal posture?
J. Anat. 204 pp363-384

"Once bipedality has been acquired, development of typical human
morphology can readily be explained as adaptations for energy saving
over long distances. A paper in this volume
shows that load-carrying ability was enhanced from australopithecines
to Homo ergaster
(early African H. erectus),supporting an earlier proposition that load-
carrying was an essential factor in human evolution."

The observation that hominids can carry loads better than chimps
doesn't mean anything unless you emplace it in a selective scenario.
The observation is consistent with my hypothesis.

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:35 pm

On Apr 8, 3:03 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Quote:

Op 08-04-2008 20:53, in artikel
d03b12a3-2e71-4473-879b-6ecd02b17...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:

On Apr 8, 11:14 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Savanna Fantast:

Name calling

No, my little boy: you have 0 arguments for your ridiculous fantasy.

The same is true for yourself Marc.

Lee Olsen

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:35 pm

Guest

On Apr 8, 3:03 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Quote:

The pervert says:

Quote:

No, my little boy:

you have 0 arguments for your ridiculous fantasy.

Says the wetloon who found the first semi-aquatic mountain beaver.

Marc Verhaegen

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:14 pm

Guest

Savanna Fantast:

Quote:

It's been mentioned more than once in this group - myself, for example.
Predators know water holes are great places to find game.

If so, so what??
Totally irrelevant to human evolution: our ancestors never lived near "water
holes".

Quote:

This does not make either the prey or the predator aquatic.

??
Idem.

Quote:

What they're missing is the huge emphasis that humans
came to place on big game and hunting.

No huge emphasis, my boy.
Only disproportioal fossilisation.

Quote:

How many tools are needed for a shellfish?

Tool use by animals = hard-object feeding.
No reason why human ancestors must be an exception.
Capuchins use stones & shells to open oysters.
Sea otter are "the" tool-using animals.
Homo reached Java & Flores: do you really think they never ate shellfish??

Quote:

None. Nor does a shell fish provide motivation for a tool kit.

??
They even used seashells to butcher bovids, my boy.
Why not inform a little bit??
K Choi & D Driwantoro 2007 "Shell tool use by early members of Homo erectus
in Sangiran, central Java, Indonesia: cut mark evidence"
J.archaeol.Sci.34:48-58.

mclark

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:10 pm

Guest

On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 8, 3:03 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Op 08-04-2008 20:53, in artikel
d03b12a3-2e71-4473-879b-6ecd02b17...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:

On Apr 8, 11:14 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Savanna Fantast:

Name calling

No, my little boy: you have 0 arguments for your ridiculous fantasy.

The same is true for yourself Marc.

Do you have a reference for those Paleocene Hominids you were talking
about, Dimmy?

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:55 pm

Do you admit you have no dispute with my scenario?

On Apr 8, 6:10 pm, mclark <mbclar...@comcast.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

On Apr 8, 3:03 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

Op 08-04-2008 20:53, in artikel
d03b12a3-2e71-4473-879b-6ecd02b17...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:

On Apr 8, 11:14 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Savanna Fantast:

Name calling

No, my little boy: you have 0 arguments for your ridiculous fantasy.

The same is true for yourself Marc.

Do you have a reference for those Paleocene Hominids you were talking
about, Dimmy?

Lee Olsen

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:02 pm

Guest

On Apr 8, 6:55 pm, claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Quote:

Do you admit you have no dispute with my scenario?

Message-ID: <376ED09C.69A21...@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."

Page 1 of 6 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:50 pm Science Forum Index