 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / November 2008#115 TRAPEZOID the signature bone of humanity?; textbook;STONETHROWING THEORY, THE CENTRAL THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Saw NOVA tonight on the Homo Florensis or Hobbit man found in the 1990s on a island near Indonesia. The question was whether Hobbit man was a different species from Homo sapiens, and it came to Matt Tocheri to outline the difference between the wrist Trapezoid bone of Homo sapiens compared to Hobbit man or Australopithecus -- Lucy. In Homo sapiens the Trapezoid is boot shaped. In apes and all other Homo species the trapezoid is triangular pyramid shaped not boot shaped. The boot shape is the evolutionary change of going from tree living to that of Stonethrowing in order for the wrist to pass throwing motion. We have the trapezoid bone fossil of Lucy and of Hobbit, but we do not have a trapezoid bone of Homo erectus. Do we have the trapezoid of Orrorin? I suspect we have the trapezoid of Neanderthal. Now what this key bone does is layout a complete time line of where a humanlike fossil fits. If the trapezoid is tending towards the boot-shape it is ancestral to humanity. If the trapezoid is far more that of pyramid shaped means it is far removed from the direct line of humanity. So if we analyze the Homo Neanderthal trapezoid we should see it is far different and more primitive than contemporaries of Neanderthal which means he was not good at throwing and would become extinct over his inefficient throwing. Now a chimpanzee does throw underarm rocks and stones and the chimp trapezoid is pyramidal and so we can grade the differences between pyramid shape to that of boot shape. And a part of the Stonethrowing theory is that the progression of trapezoid changes came far earlier than the bones that yield bipedalism. So Orrorin was found to be bipedal from its femur groove, and if Orrorin's trapezoid is found, it should be far more advanced to the boot shape away from the pyramid shape of a chimpanzee. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies The trouble I am going to have is that the trapezoid bone to prove Throwing of a species is rarely preserved as a fossil. Humanlike fossils are rare to begin with, let alone the most rare bones such as the trapezoid. To prove bipedalism we need a femur bone fossilized and it is far more likely to preserve a femur bone than any bone of the wrist. So the way I see it, is that some 8 to 10 to perhaps 12 million years ago there existed a apelike creature living around Southern Italy of say Sardinia who began picking up rocks and stones and throwing them to his advantage in gaining more food, more females to mate and other advantages. He thus passed down his genes more than others which gave rise to newer generations of Stonethrowers. Some 2 to 4 million years later, this Stonethrowing apelike creature evolved to have the legs become bipedal to enhance the Throwing. The throwing caused the bipedalism. So if we had trapezoid bones of every creature that was apelike and humanlike from 12 million years ago, we would see that the earlier trapezoids were strictly pyramid in shape for motion that was suited for up and down tree living. But then we begin to see a trapezoid bone starting to become well, Trapezoid in shape-- boot shaped, rather than pyramid shape. The boot shape enhances Throwing motion, not up and down tree living. So if we had the trapezoid bone of every creature of apelike and humanlike for the past 12 million years we would see this drift in structure of the trapezoid bone going from the elongated pyramid shape to that of the more compact trapezoid- boot shape. The recent Hobbit man of Indonesia and the Neanderthal man had trapezoids that were more aligned with the pyramid shape rather than the boot shape of modern man. But it is rare to find a Trapezoid bone preserved in fossils. So what I am going to propose is that the motion for throwing is also indicated by other arm and hand and wrist bones. There is probably a signature in the most often fossilized bone of the arm. The femur is probably the most fossilized leg bones, so I am suggesting that there is a signature in the arm bone as well. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt Tocheri discussing the uniqueness of the Trapezoid wrist bone and saying that it allows motion transverse to the up and down motion for tree living, well, I would conjecture or speculate that there is some uniqueness in the large arm bones and shoulder bones for motion that is not tree climbing but rather for motion that involves Throwing. So I would conjecture that there is some unique feature of Homo sapiens radius, Homo sapiens ulna, Homo sapiens humerus, Homo sapiens shoulder bones that confers throwing motion rather than tree living or tree climbing motion. I am concerned that these larger bones have some signature for throwing because most bones found of ancient humanlike or apelike fossils will rarely be the trapezoid bone but rather these larger arm bones. So in the entire fossil record of humanlike or apelike bones we may have only two or three trapezoid bones in total, whereas we may have thousands of other arm bone fossils. So I want some unique feature of bones that indicates the individual was a thrower. I wish the teeth could tell whether the owner made his living by throwing since the teeth are the fossils that survived the most. And perhaps that may be true in that the more throwing, the more carnivorous. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > arm bones and shoulder bones for motion that is not tree climbing but > rather for motion that involves Throwing. Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face in the crowd with deadly accuracy. Ask any worker in such a facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, their skills are even more striking. I used to photograph the Arnhem chimpanzees from across the moat, where they were at about 10 m from me. I had to be extremely careful because young males tended to throw extremely well. They would see my eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. Males more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the debate whether they know if our eyes are for seeing or not ). Then there was the mother who came to the reception with her crying son. She complained that our chimps threw stones. After questioning and an account by a bystander it turned out that the boy had thrown first, and that the same stone had come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some smelly stuff coming their way! > > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research > facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. Compared to a starfish, chimps throw well. Compared to Homo, they throw lousy. Ever see a chimp throw a 90 mph curveball? Ever see a chimp knock down a zebra with a rock at 30 yards? Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you make anymore stupid comments. http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1983JTheoretBiol.htm > > > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > > > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > throw lousy. > Ever see a chimp throw a 90 mph curveball? Given years of practice and coaching one person in a million can do that, so the comparison is fatuous. Comparing an average untrained human with a chimp, from Marc's anecdotes the chimp seems to have the leg up. > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you > make anymore stupid comments. > > http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1983JTheoretBiol.htm It doesn't discuss chimps. I also didn't find anything about skeletal anatomy. Isn't the article just speculation about neural development? Charles > > > > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > > > > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Given years of practice and coaching one person in a million can do > that, so the comparison is fatuous. No, it simply means there are 6 billion couch potatoes on the planet now and few hunter/gathers. Any human who is not an invalid can be taught to out throw a chimp. This is why the other apes also do so pooly at flintknapping, which is clearly linked to the ability to throw, see Toth. > Comparing an average untrained > human with a chimp, from Marc's anecdotes the chimp seems to have the > leg up. No, it means chimps can't throw worth a sh.t and stupid anecdotes is all that wetloon ever had. > > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you > > make anymore stupid comments. > > >http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1983JTheoretBiol.htm > > It doesn't discuss chimps. That's because they don't throw well enough to be included in his scheme of brain evolution. According to him, if chimps threw as well as we, they would have evolved large brains also. > I also didn't find anything about skeletal > anatomy. Isn't the article just speculation about neural development? The physical barriers for why a knuckle-walker can't throw a knuckle ball can be found in just about any of Toth's books. You will need to read a few Toth and Calvin's books to get the complete picture. > > > > > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > > > > > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > now and few hunter/gathers. Any human who is > not an invalid can be taught to out throw a chimp. You're argument didn't fly, so you substitute a naked claim. Moreover "out-throw" is an attempt to move the goalposts. The original point was that the human unique wrist bone confers the unique ability to throw. That's contradicted if chimps can throw competently, even if not quite as well as humans. [snip] > > > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you > > > make anymore stupid comments. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's because they don't throw well enough to be included in his > scheme of brain evolution. I see. I guess the fact that Ira Smith's "Baseball's Famous Pitchers" also doesn't mention chimps is further evidence that chimps don't throw well. > According to him, if chimps threw as well as we, (again, the "as well as we" strawman) > they would have evolved large brains also. That's not in the article explicitly; it's your inference from the speculation in the article about the "Law of large numbers" relationship between neuron patterns and throwing, right? Leaving aside the question as to whether the speculation is informed, the chain of reasoning you're introducing seems tortured. 1. The OP reported the idea that throwing ability depends on our unique wrist bone. 2. Marc Verhaegen replied that's contradicted by the fact that chimps can also throw. (Granted I have your personal assurance that he's a "wetloon" as a nearly-persuasive reason that he's not to be trusted.) 3. Your argument is that the reports that chimps can throw must be wrong, because some article or other argues that throwing accurately theoretically requires a bigger brain than chimps have. That's tortured because it claims a speculative theory trumps observation. It's also irrelevant to the argument that the wrist bone is essential for throwing. > > I also didn't find anything about skeletal > > anatomy. Isn't the article just speculation about neural development? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You will need to read a few Toth and Calvin's books to get the > complete picture. I read the article you cited in the first place and after gagging on the authors' bizarre invocation of the Law of Large Numbers I'm not going to give them, or you, a second chance. Charles > > > > > > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > > > > > > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You're argument didn't fly, so you substitute a naked claim. Says who, you? Don't make me laugh. > Moreover > "out-throw" is an attempt to move the goalposts. Yawn, more sh.t slinging. >The original point > was that the human unique wrist bone confers the unique ability to > throw. Fine. > That's contradicted if chimps can throw competently, even if > not quite as well as humans. No, chimps do not throw competently or anywhere near as well as humans, you understand as little about chimps and throwing as you do about wrist bones that prove chimps do not throw well at all (see below). > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > also doesn't mention chimps is further evidence that chimps don't > throw well. Yep, a 10 m throw, no matter how accurate, just won't get you in the record books. > > According to him, if chimps threw as well as we, > > (again, the "as well as we" strawman) OK, so YOU can't throw. > > they would have evolved large brains also. > > That's not in the article explicitly; And you are too helpless to track down further references? That's not surprising. > it's your inference from the > speculation in the article about the "Law of large numbers" > relationship between neuron patterns and throwing, right? What about it? > Leaving aside the question as to whether the speculation is informed, > the chain of reasoning you're introducing seems tortured. Lip service. > 1. The OP reported the idea that throwing ability depends on our > unique wrist bone. Fine, you said that already. > 2. Marc Verhaegen replied that's contradicted by the fact that chimps > can also throw. (Granted I have your personal assurance that he's a > "wetloon" as a nearly-persuasive reason that he's not to be trusted.) You said it best, "Marc's anecdotes" says it all. To the best of my knowledge, no formal published study has been done on chimps throwing. We only have what informal observations that have been made by others. What Frans de Waal observed, with chimp slinging accuracy, had little or nothing to do with wrist action, so much for Marc's anecdotes. > 3. Your argument is that the reports that chimps can throw must be > wrong, because some article or other argues that throwing accurately > theoretically requires a bigger brain than chimps have. > > That's tortured because it claims a speculative theory trumps > observation. No, "observation" confirms the fact that chimps use a locked wrist while slinging sh.t falsifies any claim that the wrist has anything at all to do with their alleged throwing abilities, no matter how you rate them, good or bad, confirming Marc's wetloon status. >It's also irrelevant to the argument that the wrist bone > is essential for throwing. For chimps, yes, for Homo, no. If my argument is tortured, your comments are blind. > > > I also didn't find anything about skeletal > > > anatomy. Isn't the article just speculation about neural development? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the authors' bizarre invocation of the Law of Large Numbers I'm not > going to give them, or you, a second chance. Well thank you, one less loon I have to explain everything twice to. A locked wrist (or no wrist bones at all, for that matter) does not hamper accuracy, it hampers distance/speed that gets you into the big leagues on the savanna. The difference is akin to the difference between how a discus thrower and a baseball pitcher do their throws. You could put the discus throwers wrist in a cast and he still wouldn't be hamperd all that much and probably would be just as accurate. Do the same to a major league pitcher and he wouldn't make the team. Pretty simple, just a little "observation" needed, just think of the chimp as an accurate discus thrower, not a pitcher. You have a nice day, Charles. > > > > > > > In the NOVA tv program of Homo floriensis (hobbit man) with Matt > > > > > > > Tocheri discussing the uniqueness [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > - Show quoted text - (side note: This Charles is not the same guy as me... I post as Chap now, but was Charles..my real name...in posts a few years ago.) Lee, I read the paper, and much of Calvin's website. It "feels" like he has backed away a little bit from the earlier (1980) brain work connecting throwing and language. I thoroughly enjoyed his ape pictures and the flavor of his lectures. He is a great contributor to the discussion & research. Brain research has changed a lot since 1980. We are less dependent on brain injury speculations. Much of the math in the paper is obscure, or seems pointless. A frog uses the same "math" to catch a fly. However, any time that we can quantify an action and repeat it, yippee. I am not convinced that the references (in the paper) to how children throw is quantifiable. Children rarely throw overhand until they have been in an organized sport. Or, stated differently, this could be the subject of an actual research project.... Children's preferences in throwing an object. I see a side throw most frequently, or underhanded. Really, dumping, pushing and playing in sand and water are prefered over throwing a ball. The paper suggests that being stationary may be a preferable hunting strategy over running. "Strum (1981) reports that individual baboons prey upon birds and rabbits, catching some with a short chase but merely seizing most as they lie motionless in the brush; Thomson's gazelles require stalking and chasing." Most sites that have thus far been excavated show an abundance of small game remains. My point here is, which is it? Running down prey until they drop from exhaustion, or sitting still and beaning them with a rock? Are these two mutually exclusive? I have not seen any research that compares chimp throwing ability & development of their Broca's area & right brain versus human. Is there such a paper? regards chap (aka, charles) > I read the paper, and much of Calvin's website. It "feels" like > he has backed away a little bit from the earlier (1980) brain work [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > development of their Broca's area & right brain versus human. Is there > such a paper? regards chap (aka, charles) :-) Finally a bit of common sense. Some comparative data: 1) Even a praying mantis (tiny brains) throws itself upon its prey. 2) Sealions have an excellent sense of equilibrium & can throw balls into nets with their noses. 3) De Waal doesn't knows much on human evolution, but he knows a lot on chimps & he says that chimps are excellent throwers. http://users.ugent.be/%7Emvaneech/Verhaegen%20et%20al.%202007.%20Econiche%20 of%20Homo.pdf http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen%20&%20Munro.%20New%20directions%20 in%20palaeoanthropology.pdf Some wetloon: > Some comparative data: > 1) Even a praying mantis (tiny brains) throws itself upon its prey. Now this fool thinks he is a bug. > 2) Sealions have an excellent sense of equilibrium & can throw balls into > nets with their noses. Well, when they start to leave handaxes around the savanna I will be impressed. > 3) De Waal doesn't knows much on human evolution, but he knows a lot on > chimps & he says that chimps are excellent throwers. Wrong, you said, he said, accuate for short distances (10 m) and that doesn't get you into the record books, they are losers. Their short distance (accurate) throwing is with a locked-knuckle-walking wrist that doesn't require human wrist action at all. That is just one of the reasons they can't flintknap well either. There can be no meaningful comparison between how chimps and humans throw, like sealions, it ain't the same thing. ... >> Some comparative data: >> 1) Even a praying mantis (tiny brains) throws itself upon its prey. ... kudu runner: > Now this fool thinks he is a bug. is that your "answer"?? :-D keep running after kudus, my little boy... On Nov 14, 6:04 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" <caldervang...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you > > > > > > make anymore stupid comments. > Lee, I read the paper, and much of Calvin's website. It "feels" like > he has backed away a little bit from the earlier (1980) brain work [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Brain research has changed a lot since 1980. We are less dependent on > brain injury speculations. Fine, but my point was clearly stated from the start, Lee said: “Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you make anymore stupid comments.” Key words: ON THROWING. I was referring to his work in general, I certainly don’t agree with all his statements or ideas. > Much of the math in the paper is obscure, or seems pointless. A frog > uses the same "math" to catch a fly. However, any time that we can [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > underhanded. Really, dumping, pushing and playing in sand and water > are prefered over throwing a ball. Bingo, I agree 100%. Now, add up the work of Toth, Calvin, Wynn, Whittaker, and throw in O’brian’s famous handaxe-throwing paper, re-tested by Calvin, Whittaker, and Lee Olsen and things start to jell. Kids also can’t make a handaxe until they are about 7 years old, or so. Modern humans can’t visualize in three dimensions, nor do they have the wrist power needed to break the rock at young ages. They don’t run very well early either, not like a kudu baby. Overhand or underhand preference really makes no difference. Have you ever tried to catch a fast-pitch soft ball thrown by a professional? All I can say is duck. It’s all in the wrist. Nor can the average couch potato detach a flake from a basalt rock with a hammer stone without a lot of practice (if at all), it’s all in the wrist, that is the critical advantage. Kids and chimps simply can’t do it. Most of this basic stuff can be found in: Tools, Language, and Cognition edited by Gibson. http://www.amazon.com/Tools-Language-Cognition-Human-Evolution/dp/052148541X > The paper suggests that being stationary may be a preferable hunting > strategy over running. "Strum (1981) reports that individual baboons [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or sitting still and beaning them with a rock? Are these two mutually > exclusive? Both methods work, and everything in-between. The book Emergence of Man, Leakey’s books, Barbara Isaac’s paper are loaded with examples of how humans catch and kill animals (much faster initially) without guns or spears. Hadza women and children run down sub-adult kudus and beat them to death with their digging sticks. Whatever works, do it, that’s what our big brains, legs, and wrists are for. > I have not seen any research that compares chimp throwing ability & > development of their Broca's area & right brain versus human. Is there > such a paper? I would be surprised if there was. > On Nov 14, 6:04 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" Lee Olsen commented (rudely): Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you make anymore stupid comments. Caldervangogh responded (politely): Lee, I read the paper, and much of Calvin's website. It "feels" like he has backed away a little bit from the earlier (1980) brain work connecting throwing and language. I thoroughly enjoyed his ape pictures and the flavor of his lectures. He is a great contributor to the discussion & research. Claudius Denk: IOW, Olsen is either straw-baiting the discussion by introducing a reference without informing his audience of the fact that Calvin no longer supports this hypothesis or he is ignorant that this is the case. Either don't bode well for Lee, who is increasingly displaying this kind of troll behavior. <small snip> > Fine, but my point was clearly stated from the start, > Lee said: “Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing > before you > make anymore stupid comments.” Key words: ON THROWING. > I was referring to his work in general, I certainly don’t agree with > all his statements or ideas. Lee, it's pretty obvious what rhetorical tactic you are employing here. Twice now you've insulted us by asserting that we have not read something. One can only wonder why it is you would have us reread what most of us have read 5 or 6 times by now? If there is some specific point in this general reference why don't you just tell us what it is? Provide a direct quote. Please don't keep it secret from us anymore, Lee. Tell us of this special understanding that you've been withholding from us. I can't take the suspense any longer. > > Much of the math in the paper is obscure, or seems pointless. A frog > > uses the same "math" to catch a fly. However, any time that we can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > re-tested by Calvin, Whittaker, and Lee Olsen and things start to > jell. Things start to "jell"? Really? I guess we'll just have to take your word on it that. I must have missed something the other 7 or 8 times I read it. Maybe someday Lee will tell us his secret. Maybe it involves some kind of special decoder ring that he got in a box of cereal! > Kids also can’t make a handaxe until they are about 7 years old, or > so. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > very well early > either, not like a kudu baby. Uh, okay. > Overhand or underhand preference really makes no difference. Have you > ever tried [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Tools, Language, and Cognition edited by Gibson. > http://www.amazon.com/Tools-Language-Cognition-Human-Evolution/dp/052... Lee, thank you for these general references. I'm sure they will be helpful to somebody. But beyond that it doesn't seem you have much of a point here. Your whole "point" here seems to be summed up perfectly in your own words, "...my point was clearly stated from the start, 'Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you make anymore stupid comments.”' Lee, FYI, you can safely assume that every participant in this NG has read this paper multiple times. In fact, Lee, you can safely assume that every participant in this NG has read this paper and all of its referenced material multiple times. Beyond this, Lee, its more and more starting to seem that you have no specific points you'd like to discuss. > > The paper suggests that being stationary may be a preferable hunting > > strategy over running. "Strum (1981) reports that individual baboons [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > or sitting still and beaning them with a rock? Are these two mutually > > exclusive? I think this just makes sense. And I'm not saying that just because it is consistent with (and even complimentarty to) the communal territorialism of my hypothesis. > Both methods work, and everything in-between. The book Emergence of > Man, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sticks. Whatever works, do it, that’s what our big brains, legs, and > wrists are for. Ya know, Lee. For somebody who is constantly harping on Marc Verhaegen (rightly so, IMO) for introducing anecdotal evidence, it's surprising how plainly anecdotal is the evidence that underlies your own, somewhat vague, assertions. Here he is slyly trying to suggest that the fact that Hazda women run-down and beat to death Kudus that this reflects the behaviors at the transition between ape and the earliest hominids. (Of course Lee will, now, deny that he ever implied such.) > > I have not seen any research that compares chimp throwing ability & > > development of their Broca's area & right brain versus human. Is there > > such a paper? > > I would be surprised if there was. > On Nov 14, 6:04 pm, "caldervang...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Tools, Language, and Cognition edited by Gibson. > http://www.amazon.com/Tools-Language-Cognition-Human-Evolution/dp/052... I'll read this. > > The paper suggests that being stationary may be a preferable hunting > > strategy over running. "Strum (1981) reports that individual baboons [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > sticks. Whatever works, do it, that’s what our big brains, legs, and > wrists are for. I don't disagree. However, if it becomes just another generalist strategy (ie, either running or sitting or both), then it loses explanatory value. IMHO, some one or two factors must be sussed out to explain the evolution in our line of 1. bipedalism circa 6mya, 2. encephalization circa 2.5 mya, and 3. fully developed language and art circa 200 kya. We are generalists NOW, but which factors brought that to us? Throwing in humans needs to be further differentiated from the chimps in order for it to qualify as a selection factor, in my opinion. regards chap > > I have not seen any research that compares chimp throwing ability & > > development of their Broca's area & right brain versus human. Is there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research > > facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. > > Compared to a starfish, chimps throw well. Compared to Homo, > they throw lousy. Ever see a chimp throw a 90 mph curveball? Obviously human can throw with greater accuracy than chimps. > Ever see a chimp knock down a zebra with a rock at 30 yards? Ever see a human get within 30 yards of a zebra? > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before > you make anymore stupid comments. Aren't these the two geniuses that came up with the notion that throwing begat speaking/language? With absurd reasoning like this it's pretty obvious why you don't quote them directly. > http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1983JTheoretBiol.htm Did you actually read this, Lee? You should. > > > Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research > > > facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ever see a human get within 30 yards of a zebra? You were just cited Barbara Isaac. Are you calling her a liar or are you just as ignorant of her work as you are of Toths? 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." > > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before > > you make anymore stupid comments. > > Aren't these the two geniuses that came up with the notion that > throwing begat speaking/language? With absurd reasoning like this > it's pretty obvious why you don't quote them directly. It's pretty obvious you haven't been to a library in your life. 1. Nobody lived on the savanna until the advent of jeeps and guns. 2. Lions evolved from saber-tooth cats. 3. Apiths never ventured more than 50/100 yds away from a tree. 4. Climate change is not happening presently. 5. Agriculture probably stretches back hundreds of thousand if not millions of years. 6. Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. 7. Spears are useless against hyena and lions. 8. ..then what purpose do the stone weapons (spears, bow and arrow) serve that show up in the fossil record starting about 2.5 mya? 9. Then you should stop;pissing into it. 10. Speak for yourself. I see just fine at night. 11. Uh, er. These artifacts don't come with notes attached to them that indicate how they were actually used. 12. Why we see stasis in tool advancement up until a few thousand years ago. 13. So Paul, now that you've, finally, come to accept the fact that early hominids--both A'pith and HE--resided in treed habitat So the real question remains, what is an illiterate idiot like you still doing here? > >http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1983JTheoretBiol.htm > > Did you actually read this, Lee? You should. No, I actually read a couple of his books. I've also met him in person... nice guy. >> Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research >> facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. some netloon: > Compared to a starfish, chimps throw well. Compared to Homo, they > throw lousy. Sigh. My little boy, I'm not interested in your childish blabla. > Ever see a chimp throw a 90 mph curveball? Ever see a chimp knock down > a zebra with a rock at 30 yards? Ever seen chimp throwing his feces to you? Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not throwing. Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face in the crowd with deadly accuracy. Ask any worker in such a facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, their skills are even more striking. I used to photograph the Arnhem chimpanzees from across the moat, where they were at about 10 m from me. I had to be extremely careful because young males tended to throw extremely well. They would see my eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. Males more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the debate whether they know if our eyes are for seeing or not ). Then there was the mother who came to the reception with her crying son. She complained that our chimps threw stones. After questioning and an account by a bystander it turned out that the boy had thrown first, and that the same stone had come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some smelly stuff coming their way! > Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you > make anymore stupid comments. better read serious scientists, my boy, eg, why not De Waal? > >> Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research > >> facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ever see a chimp throw a 90 mph curveball? Ever see a chimp knock down > > a zebra with a rock at 30 yards? Hey, Marc. Isn't this like the 50th time you posted this? > Ever seen chimp throwing his feces to you? Frans de Waal, evol-psych > 22.9.01: Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not > throwing. I've never heard anything but that apes can/do throw objects. So, Marc, you are starting off your argument with a straw-issue. Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not > have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is > known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > better read serious scientists, my boy, eg, why not De Waal? Well, okay.Marc does kinda have a point here. Apes have been on this planet much longer than hominids. If human evolution was *simply* the result of stone throwing behavior in and of itself then we'd expect it to have begun shortly after the appearance of the first apes. Since this observation is plainly inconsistent with what is observed in the fossil record this 'proves' that human evolution could not be the result of stone throwing behavior in and of itself. This does not, however, rule out stone throwing behavior altogether. It just shows that there has to be more to it than *just* stone throwing. >>>> ... Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research >>>> facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. some netloon: >>> Compared to a starfish, chimps throw well. Compared to Homo, they >>> throw lousy. >> Sigh. My little boy, I'm not interested in your childish blabla. >>> Ever see a chimp throw a 90 mph curveball? Ever see a chimp knock down >>> a zebra with a rock at 30 yards? > Hey, Marc. Isn't this like the 50th time you posted this? Chimps knocking down zebras?? I don't think so. >> Ever seen chimp throwing his feces to you? Frans de Waal, evol-psych >> 22.9.01: Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not >> throwing. > I've never heard anything but that apes can/do throw objects. So, > Marc, you are starting off your argument with a straw-issue. OK, but some savanna fools don't seem to grasp that: they want to kill kudus with throwing stones. >> Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not >> have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some >> smelly stuff coming their way! >>> Better read William Calvin and Barbara Isaac on throwing before you >>> make anymore stupid comments. >> better read serious scientists, my boy, eg, why not De Waal? > Well, okay. Marc does kinda have a point here. Apes have been on this > planet much longer than hominids. If human evolution was *simply* the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fossil record this 'proves' that human evolution could not be the > result of stone throwing behavior in and of itself. Yes, obviously. > This does not, however, rule out stone throwing behavior altogether. > It just shows that there has to be more to it than *just* stone > throwing. Idem. > Chimps knocking down zebras?? I don't think so. Can you read English at all, who said they did, you delusional pervert? > OK, but some savanna fools don't seem to grasp that: they want to kill kudus > with throwing stones. Says the wetloon who thinks chimps throw well. >> Chimps knocking down zebras?? I don't think so. Savanna Fool: > Can you read English at all, who said they did, you delusional > pervert? >> OK, but some savanna fools don't seem to grasp that: they want to kill kudus >> with throwing stones. > Says the wetloon who thinks chimps throw well. Liar: not me, my little boy, not me, but one of your fellow savanna believers: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not throwing. Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face in the crowd with deadly accuracy. Ask any worker in such a facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, their skills are even more striking. I used to photograph the Arnhem chimpanzees from across the moat, where they were at about 10 m from me. I had to be extremely careful because young males tended to throw extremely well. They would see my eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. Males more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the debate whether they know if our eyes are for seeing or not ). Then there was the mother who came to the reception with her crying son. She complained that our chimps threw stones. After questioning and an account by a bystander it turned out that the boy had thrown first, and that the same stone had come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some smelly stuff coming their way! > Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research > where they were at about 10 m Yep, 10 m, about the limit of their poor throwing capacity, much beyond that they are completely helpless. That is one reason they never weaned themselves from the trees. With this limited capacity to throw well, they could never scare a lion off a kill on the savanna, as Homo can easily do. With our ability run, sweat, and throw, Homo is perfectly adapted to life on the savanna. This is why tools and Homo fossils are found on the savanna and chimp bones are not. When a rain of boulders hits a lion in the head from 50 m away, thrown by Homo, he knows its time to hide. >> Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research > >> where they were at about 10 em > > Yep, 10 em, about the limit of their poor throwing capacity, > much beyond that they are completely helpless. Sheer nonsense. Chimp are much stronger than humans and have HUGE arms. With practice, they'd be much better. http://animal.discovery.com/guides/endangered/mammals/gallery/chimpanzee.jpg or *http://tinyurl.com/5svwzy * > That is one reason they never weaned themselves from the > trees. Chimp predation problems arise at night. (Night is the period of darkness, and on this planet is 12 hours out of the 24.) > With this limited capacity to throw well No primate (or other animal) can throw well in the dark. You need to be able to see what you are throwing at. > they could never scare a lion off a kill on the savanna, as > Homo can easily do. Neither Homo nor chimp can scare a lion in the dark. Lions can see in the dark, primates can't. > With our ability run, sweat, and throw, Homo is > perfectly adapted to life on the savanna. Homo has, in effect, a ZERO capacity to run. Every mammalian species on the savanna can far out-pace Homo. Sweating is pointless on the savanna, (which is why no savanna species does it). The necessary replacement water and replacement salts are far too hard to obtain. > This is why tools and Homo fossils are found on the savanna > and chimp bones are not. Homo died on the savanna, often leaving tools and fossils. > When a rain of boulders hits a lion in the head from 50 em > away, thrown by Homo, he knows its time to hide. Shame it does not work at night. (Night is the period of darkness, and it occupies a full 12 hours out of the 24 on this planet.) Paul. > Sheer nonsense. Chimp are much stronger > than humans and have HUGE arms. With > practice, they'd be much better. Chirps the loon who claims chimps can't dig. http://tinyurl.com/3cnmum Paul Crowley: "Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig." >> Yes, of course: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: In all research >> where they were at about 10 m > Yep, 10 m, about the limit of their poor throwing capacity, much > beyond that they are completely helpless. Liar, that is not what De Waal said. Grow up: who knows more about chimps than De Waal: Frans de Waal, evol-psych 22.9.01: Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not throwing. Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face in the crowd with deadly accuracy. Ask any worker in such a facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, their skills are even more striking. I used to photograph the Arnhem chimpanzees from across the moat, where they were at about 10 m from me. I had to be extremely careful because young males tended to throw extremely well. They would see my eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. Males more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the debate whether they know if our eyes are for seeing or not ). Then there was the mother who came to the reception with her crying son. She complained that our chimps threw stones. After questioning and an account by a bystander it turned out that the boy had thrown first, and that the same stone had come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some smelly stuff coming their way! Now in the NOVA tv show of Homo florensis or Hobbit man found near Indonesia where Matt Tocheri shows that the Trapezoid bone clearly shows Hobbit as a different species, yet where chimpanzees and Hobbit and Neanderthal threw rocks and stones, needs clarification. Only Homo sapiens has a boot shaped or trapezoid shaped Trapezoid bone. One can infer that the naming of the trapezoid bone in humans was because it was shaped as a geometrical trapezoid. But in chimps and Hobbit and Neanderthal their trapezoid bone was more pyramid shaped, yet they still threw rocks and stones. So, does that damage the Stonethrowing theory? Not at all. We must realize that it is evolution at work and gradations are what is at play. We must also consider the definition of throwing. A chimpanzee only throws underarm, never overarm like a baseball pitcher. So a chimpazee is purely a underarm and never overarm and never able to lift a boulder size rock and overarm pommel and the chimpanzee trapezoid bone is the most pyramid shaped over all hominid bones. If we were lucky to find a Orrorin trapezoid bone, it would be slightly more boot-shaped than pyramid shaped as the chimpanzee and thus allowing Orrorin to throw overarm, although crudely overarm. The pyramid shaped trapezoid bone of Neanderthal and Hobbit was far more converging on the boot shape of Homo sapiens than it was on Orrorin. And so the Neanderthal and Hobbit were able to throw overarm but not as efficient as Homo sapiens. So the gradation of pyramid shaped trapezoid to boot shaped trapezoid from Orrorin to Homo sapiens was a gradual evolving from pyramid to eventually the full boot shaped Homo sapiens. Now here is a nice easy experiment and I wish I had a chimp to test it out on. Hold the arm motionless. And only the wrist and hand can be in motion. Have it on a table near an object like a pen. Now the hand can pick up the pen and set it backwards in preparation for a thrust forward, and a thrust at various angles. So, in other words, with only the wrist and hand allowed in motion, can a human pick up a object and throw it. Now I just did this experiment and threw a pen about a meter in distance across the table. Now I suspect that a chimpanzee is incapable of doing that experiment because of the shape of those wrist bones starting with the Trapezoid. And looking at a picture of all those wrist bones near the trapezoid, they all appear to have been modified by evolution from a up and down motion consistent with tree climbing to that of boot shaped bones to have lateral motion for throwing instead of climbing. Now I do not own a chimpanzee to be able to test him/her out on whether he can fulfill that experiment, but I do know that chimps throw only underarm, and so going with that information leads me to suspect that a chimp could never fulfill the above test. So not only is the trapezoid bone of Homo sapiens unique to Homo sapiens for Throwing but that all the wrist bones have been evolutionary modified from Orrorin to us to increase throwing. P.S. But I would like to find modifications on the radius, ulna, humerus for throwing since those are the bones most often found fossilized. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies On Nov 11, 8:53 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: > In Homo sapiens the Trapezoid is boot shaped. In apes and all other > Homo species the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that of Stonethrowing in > order for the wrist to pass throwing motion. > I suspect we have the trapezoid of Neanderthal. Yep, shake hands with Moshe... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthal-burial.gif > So if we analyze the Homo Neanderthal trapezoid we should see it is > far different and more primitive > than contemporaries of Neanderthal > which means he was not good at > throwing and would become > extinct over his inefficient throwing. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6930/full/422395a.html http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/ant1050/Lectures/hunting-2x3.pdf http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199703/0110.html "The Schoningen spears now provide unambiguous evidence that large animals were killed in this manner by 400,000 years ago. "The spears have other exciting implications. First, the time and skill needed to make them: each is made from the trunk of a 30-year-old spruce tree; in each, the end with the tip come from the base of the trunk, where the wood is hardest; and each has the same proportions, with the center of gravity a third of the way from the sharp end, as in a modern javelin. These represent considerable investment of time and skill--in selecting an appropriate tree, in roughing out the design and in the final stages of shaping. In other words, these hominids were not living within a spontaneous 'five- minute culture', acting opportunistically in response to immediate situations. Rather, we see considerable depth of planning, sophistication of design, and patience in carving the wood, all of which have been attributed only to modern humans." ~Robin Dennell, "The World's Oldest Spears," Nature 385(Feb. 27, 1997), p. 767-768 http://tinyurl.com/622l75 Nothing wrong with a Neandertals idea of symmetry. Some flint handaxes are given a final shape by small secondary-retouch flakes. This is also an indication nothing was the matter with their grip. Since they went to so much trouble with symmetry and to make what appear to be throwing spears , my bet is they could throw pretty well. If we go further back to the beginning of the Acheulean and early Homo e, some of their handaxes were made from basalt that is very difficult to knap, even a good knapper like Toth ( I think was a former athelete) has trouble with this material. You have to literally throw a core upwards with one hand and swing a hammerstone downward into the core and also impart a snapping of the wrist during contact in order to detach a flake. I have a man-made quartzite chopper. It has 4 flakes detached from one end only, the other end is a unmodified rounded cobble. I tried to knock a flake off the bottom, unmodified end, and I couldn't do it. Someone in the stone age was a lot stronger and better coordinated than I am. From this I infer Homo e was a pretty good thrower also, since it has been pointed out by Calvin and Toth how similar throwing is to flintknappeng tough materials. > On Nov 11, 8:53�pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yep, shake hands with Moshe... I guess they displayed the trapezoid of the Neanderthal but could not find any details. > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthal-burial.gif > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v422/n6930/full/422395a.html --- quoting --- Nature 422, 395 (27 March 2003) | doi:10.1038/422395a Despite their ability to make and use stone tools, Neanderthals were presumed to have had limited manual dexterity on the basis of the anatomy of their thumb and forefinger1 — a contention that has been called into question2, 3, 4. Here we investigate the likely extent of Neanderthal thumb function by using a three-dimensional dynamic simulation that is based on the anatomical details and articular morphology of the thumb and index finger. We find that these digits could make tip-to-tip contact, and conclude that manual dexterity in Neanderthals was probably not significantly different from that of modern humans. --- end quoting Nature --- So far I have the notion that a Neanderthal trapezoid bone was recovered. But what I do not have as yet is the understanding as to whether the trapezoid of a Neanderthal is fully the same or interchangeable with the trapezoid of a Homo sapiens? Is there any noticeable difference between the Neanderthal trapezoid and Homo sapiens? My guess is that there is a large enough difference such that no Neanderthal team of dodge ball could beat a Homo sapiens team. > http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/ant1050/Lectures/hunting-2x3.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > appear to be throwing spears , > my bet is they could throw pretty well. My picture is that evolution designed a throwing species and there would be many models of throwing for many species of throwers, but in the end only one species would be alive and extinct the others. Like one huge and long 10 million years of a dodge-ball contest and the loser goes extinct. I guess the skull with the browridges is the most often found fossil. The recession of the browridge would parallel the need for increasing peripheral-vision for throwing. So Neanderthal with his large browridge was no match for Homo sapiens. > If we go further back to the beginning of the Acheulean and early Homo > e, some of their handaxes [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > been pointed out by Calvin > and Toth how similar throwing is to flintknappeng tough materials. I would think knapping activity could go on for days months and years without ever a problem in the arms or hands. But only a few hours of strenous throwing gives me problems with the muscles and joints and ligaments in the elbow and shoulder region. Throwing to save your life, I imagine would do alot of stress on the elbows. I marvel at baseball pitchers how long and fast they can throw. P.S. have you got a full Nature article above? And do they say whether the trapezoid of Neanderthal -- whether they are starkly different than in Homo sapiens? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies On Nov 19, 12:03 am, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Nov 11, 8:53 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I guess they displayed the trapezoid of the Neanderthal but could > not find any details. https://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/Kebara_2.jpg http://tinyurl.com/67nkro <snip> > But what I do not have as yet is the understanding as to whether the > trapezoid of a Neanderthal > is fully the same or interchangeable with the trapezoid of a Homo > sapiens? http://discovermagazine.com/1999/aug/featneander/tools.jpg This jewelry was found with a Châtelperronian lithic industry and a 34,000-year-old Neandertal temporal bone. http://www.archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/neandertals.html You do not make tiny grooves and holes in teeth if you don’t have tiny threads and the ability to make tiny knots to hook them together. In fact, just having the equipment to drill the holes in the first place proves manual dexterity as good or better than mine. The error that is frequently made in the literature is in comparing dissimilar aged bones because that is all they have. The evidence at Arcy-sur-Cure proves that Neandertals were evolving morphologically and culturally as fast as Hss. > Is there any noticeable difference between the Neanderthal trapezoid > and Homo sapiens? If you compare both at only 33,000 BP who knows, they simply don't have enough fossils to compare. > My guess is that there is a large enough difference such that no > Neanderthal team of > dodge ball could beat a Homo sapiens team. Could be, but what would it mean if a team of Watusi could beat a team of pygmies at basketball? <snip> > My picture is that evolution designed a throwing species and there > would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and long 10 million years of a dodge-ball contest and the loser goes > extinct. Then could the same argument be applied to the Dorset and the Tasmainians? > I guess the skull with the browridges is the most often found fossil. > The > recession of the browridge would parallel the need for increasing > peripheral-vision for throwing. So Neanderthal with his large > browridge > was no match for Homo sapiens. What about the Saint-Césaire skeleton with small browridges or Moshe who was actually taller than the average European today? > > If we go further back to the beginning of the Acheulean and early Homo > > e, some of their handaxes [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > without > ever a problem in the arms or hands. >But only a few hours of strenous > throwing > gives me problems with the muscles and joints and ligaments in the > elbow > and shoulder region. I get the same injury to the wrist knapping for long periods as I do playing too much tennis. > Throwing to save your life, I imagine would do > alot of > stress on the elbows. I marvel at baseball pitchers how long and fast > they > can throw. Yes, but when I was a kid, if a pitcher was having a good day, they left him in for nine innings. Now they normally pull them after so many pitches, good game or not. They still give them 4 days rest, with few exceptions. > P.S. have you got a full Nature article above? And do they say whether > the trapezoid > of Neanderthal -- whether they are starkly different than in Homo > sapiens? Unfortunately there is a huge gap in fossils from 40 kya to 27 kya for both Neandertals and Hss. I think the inferences will have to be made from the incised teeth at Arcy. Are you familiar with the atlatl, which was probably invented just after the Neandertals went extinct? That is another toy that uses a lot of wrist motion. > On Nov 19, 12:03�am, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 8:53 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > is fully the same or interchangeable with the trapezoid of a Homo > > sapiens? Thanks those two websites were helpful. The first website I presume shows a Neanderthal skeleton and the trapezoid bone looks to me as though it is more pyramid shaped than trapezoid shaped (boot shape of modern man). The second site states this: "Early and Late Upper Paleolithic hand remains are more similar to recent human hands than to Neanderthal hands" "adapted for power during manipulation" Just as the Hobbit man of Homo floriensis found off an island of Indonesia recently tells us the trapezoid bone makes the Hobbit a different species, we can look at the trapezoid of Neanderthal and it also tells us Neanderthal was a different species purely from the differences of the trapezoid bone. So the picture we would have of the evolution was that when Neanderthal came in contact with ancient Homo sapiens they were extincted via the stonethrowing. Sort of an awful way to become extinct; to be pommelled to death by stones. So Anthropology as a science is very much completed and closed with only details now to fill in the blanks. Anthropology starts at about 12 or 10 million years ago and we can take any samples of ancient apes of 10 to 12 million years ago. Take our best ancient ape sample and now we take a skeleton of modern human bones. Now we simply say, what bone changes did evolution have to make in order for the skeleton of ancient 12 million year ago ape to become the modern day human skeleton. The trapezoid of ancient ape was pyramid shaped and the trapezoid of modern man is boot shaped. So in 12 million years time evolution had to change the trapezoid bone and in that time had to make the elbow and knee and pelvis the midpoints of arm, leg and body respectively. And in that 12 million years had to make the arm 70% length of leg. There is only one behaviour that can fullfill those 12 million years of evolutionary change -- Stonethrowing or Rockthrowing. Every other fossil bones found in that 12 million year span are added details or facts proving the Stonethrowing theory. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies On Nov 19, 1:16 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote: > So the picture we would have of the evolution was that when > Neanderthal came in contact > with ancient Homo sapiens they were extincted via the stonethrowing. > Sort of an awful way > to become extinct; to be pommelled to death by stones. http://www.athenapub.com/8shea1.htm “Conclusion: The most interesting thing about the Levantine record is that until 47,000 BP, there is no objective basis for predicting whether Neanderthals or early modern humans would ultimately be the most successful, and certainly no way to predict that modern humans would permanently replace the Neanderthals. Because we know the Neanderthal fossil record so well, relative to other hominid fossils, and because we know they became extinct, there is a tendency to see Neanderthals as inevitable evolutionary “losers.” However, studies of their fossils and their archaeological record point to no obvious defects in their adaptations. Neanderthals and their Homo heidelbergensis ancestors evolved and thrived between 300,000-30,000 years ago, nearly a quarter of a million years, in some of the harshest and least hospitable habitats ever occupied by hominids. The picture of the Neanderthals emerging from recent research is one of formidable competitors, humans every bit as worthy of our interest and admiration as our own direct ancestors.” |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.