 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / December 2004Stonethrowing theory has a competitor/rival theory of Running by Lieberman & Bramble
--- quoting Reuters in full because I need to debate line for line --- Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say Wed Nov 17, 4:05 PM ET Science - Reuters By Patricia Reaney LONDON (Reuters) - Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to cover long distances and compete for food, scientists said on Wednesday. From tendons and ligaments in the legs and feet that act like springs and skull features that help prevent overheating, to well-defined buttocks that stabilize the body, the human anatomy is shaped for running. "We do it because we are good at it. We enjoy it and we have all kinds of specializations that permit us to run well," said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of anthropology at Harvard University in Massachusetts. "There are all kinds of features that we see in the human body that are critical for running," he told Reuters. Lieberman and Dennis Bramble, a biology professor at the University of Utah, studied more than two dozen traits that increase humans' ability to run. Their research is reported in the science journal Nature. They suspect modern humans evolved from their ape-like ancestors about 2 million years ago so they could hunt and scavenge for food over large distances. But the development of physical features that enabled humans to run entailed a trade-off -- the loss of traits that were useful for climbing trees. "We are very confident that strong selection for running -- which came at the expense of the historical ability to live in trees -- was instrumental in the origin of the modern human body form," Bramble said in a statement. AGAINST THE GRAIN The conventional theory is that running was a by-product of bipedalism, or the ability to walk upright on two legs, that evolved in ape-like human ancestors called Australopithecus at least 4.5 million years ago. But Lieberman and Bramble argue that it took a few million more years for the running physique to evolve, so the ability to walk cannot explain the transition. "There were 2.5 million to 3 million years of bipedal walking without ever looking like a human, so is walking going to be what suddenly transforms the hominid body?" said Bramble. "We're saying 'no, walking won't do that, but running will."' If natural selection did not favor running, the scientists believe humans would still look a lot like apes. "Running has substantially shaped human evolution. Running made us human -- at least in the anatomical sense," Bramble added. Among the features that set humans apart from apes to make them good runners are longer legs to take longer strides, shorter forearms to enable the upper body to counterbalance the lower half during running and larger disks which allow for better shock absorption. Big buttocks are also important. "Have you ever looked at an ape? They have no buns," said Bramble. Humans lean forward when they run and the buttocks "keep you from pitching over on your nose each time a foot hits the ground," he added. --- end quoting --- I am going to pick apart this recent news. Essentially I am going to say that creation of humanity from apelines was caused by Stonethrowing not running. And that running was just a augmented benefit. But that Stonethrowing accelerated anatomy changes and that Stonethrowing created bipedalism and that running augmented stonethrowing. It appears that Mr. Lieberman and Bramble seem to ignore Throwing altogether. I do not ignore running but I think I relegate running to its proper perspective of importance in creating humanity out of apes. And Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Bramble have lost this debate from the starting gates in terms of Logic. Neither one of them can say that Running created bipedalism. But I can easily and simply say that Stonethrowing created bipedalism and once bipedalism was formed in Oreopithecus and then later Orrorin that running developed to enhance Throwing. It is interesting that Lieberman and Bramble focus on forearms and buttock. But is it not easy to argue that shortening forearm and increasing buttock aids Throwing? Especially the forearm in that long forearms is detrimental to Throwing and only aids running in a minor degree. Much more later as I pick apart the above.... Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > --- quoting Reuters in full because I need to debate line for line --- > Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say > > Wed Nov 17, 4:05 PM ET > > Science - Reuters (huge snip) > "Running has substantially shaped human > evolution. Running made us human -- at least > in the anatomical sense," Bramble added. I think as good scientists when facing a choice of two rival competing theories that the good scientists take the theory that is more powerful. The theory that explains more and the theory that is the more logical complete theory. A choice between Stonethrowing as the creator of humans out of apes or the choice of Running as the creator factor. I say more powerful and logically complete is Stonethrowing because this behaviour by itself can create bipedalism in a primate where before there was only quadraped. And when we ask whether the Running theory had any role in creating bipedalism is a obtuse question to begin with because you obviously need to be a biped to ever become a runner. So in this sense the wise scientist can easily spot that the 2 rival theories of Stonethrowing versus Running as shaping and creating humans out of prehumans that the Stonethrowing theory is the more powerful and logically complete theory. Stonethrowing subsumes both bipedalism and its later enhancement of running. So Running is merely an enhancement of bipedalism whereas Stonethrowing behaviour created bipedalism and once created then running not only enhances Throwing but enhances bipedalism. Another aspect is that both Lieberman & Bramble discuss various parts of the anatomy that have changed and adapted to the needs of Running. But are those anatomical features enhancements only for Running or are they enhancements more for Throwing better? For instance they talk about the buttock and the shortened forearms, longer legs and larger disks. But are those areas of anatomical change the areas needed for change in order to Throw with precision? If the Lieberman and Bramble theory of Running had any credence would ask whether there were any other anatomical changes of bones and muscles that were needed for Throwing that had a more dramatic and accelerated change. Are there parts of the bones and muscles needed to make throwing but not needed to make running? I believe so and those changes would disprove the Lieberman and Bramble theory. Changes such as opposable thumb of Rotator Cuff of loss of browridges and stereoscopic vision. What I am saying is that the features of bone change that Lieberman and Bramble have assembled are needed both for Running but also for Throwing and they are needed more for Throwing. Because the additional bone changes such as opposable thumb and Rotator Cuff are needed not for Running but for Throwing. So if you have a primate that is quadraped and living in trees and you want to make that primate a throwing and biped and running. Then to make it throwing you need to change the Rotator Cuff, thumb and finger region, arm and leg and backbone, eventually buttock. All of these changes create bipedalism. And once bipedalism is created you can start changing the bones for running. But the bones for running are a minor subset of the bones needed for Throwing. Question: looking at early primates, how much of a anatomy change is needed to make Throwing with skill and how much is needed to make Running? Is it not easier to make changes in buttock and shortened forearm than it is to remove browridges and to make Rotator Cuff and Opposable thumb? So the bones to do Throwing with skill takes a longer period of time to change than to change the bones of a biped to be able for the biped to run proficiently. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > --- quoting Reuters in full because I need to debate line for line --- > Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say > > Wed Nov 17, 4:05 PM ET > > Science - Reuters (huge snip) > "We are very confident that strong selection > for running -- which came at the expense of > the historical ability to live in trees -- > was instrumental in the origin of the modern human > body form," Bramble said in a statement. When scientists are faced with 2 competing theories such as Stonethrowing versus Running, it is usually easy to spot the true theory in that the true theory is larger than its weaker rival. It is larger and more incompassing and more logical and complete. What I mean by this is that Stonethrowing can create bipedalism from out of quadraped and once Throwing creates bipedalism then Running would be an enhancement or byproduct of both Throwing and bipedalism. Obviously, without laughter, you cannot create bipedalism from running. But you can create bipedalism from Throwing. Messr. Lieberman and Bramble talk long on various bone anatomy and musclature parts that needed changing for a primate to Run. But the immediate response to such a list of bone and muscle changes is that these changes are needed also for Throwing efficiency. We need to change the primate buttock and forearm shortened in order to Throw better. But where the Lieberman and Bramble theory really falls short is on the question of bone changes that accelerated that are needed specifically for Throwing and not Running. The Rotator Cuff need not have changed much at all if Running were so key. Then there is the Opposable Thumb and the changes of the hands and fingers to lift rocks and to hold rocks and to throw rocks. These changes are not needed for running but critical for throwing. So how long of a time period would it take to change the Rotator Cuff and Opposable Thumb and stereoscopic eyesight with the removal of browridges and the changes in the arm bone length compared to the changes of bones for Running? I can easily see that one can show the time frame of bone changes needs a much longer time for Throwing than for Running. So the wise scientist usually picks the theory that is more encompassing. Throwing can create a biped out of a quadraped but Running cannot create a biped. And once Throwing creates a biped then running can enhance both throwing and bipedalism. But Throwing came first and created running later. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies (all else snipped) > --- quoting Reuters in full because I need to debate line for line --- > Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say > > Wed Nov 17, 4:05 PM ET Please let me elaborate on what I said in my last post that Stonethrowing theory is more powerful logically and more complete than a rival theory of Running. We would have to ask what propelled or magnified the evolving of Running in pre-humans. Usually when evolution of running occurs in a mammal is because of predator vs. prey increase in running so that the cats evolve faster in running because their prey are evolving faster in running escape. But now when we apply that reasoning to humans really becomes illogical and irrational. Does Lieberman and Bramble expect us to believe that humans were some part of an equation of predator prey where running was Natural-Selection of evolution? Worse yet for the Lieberman and Bramble theory is that the true answer as to what created humans out of primates, one would think that alien planets in outer space that have intelligent life may not have followed a identical pattern as Earth but at least some parallel pattern. So according to Lieberman and Bramble that advanced life on other planets was achieved by the factor of increasing running of pre-humans. But the increase in running is not specific to prehumans or humans but throughout the animal kingdom. But the Stonethrowing theory would enter the debate nicely by saying it is a **specific and new behaviour** never before witnessed on Earth. No other animal picks up rocks and throws them with the intent of gain both overarm and underarm. If Lieberman and Bramble were correct then there would exist thousands of planets with advanced alien life that was created by the increased running skills of some animals. In contrast, if the Stonethrowing theory is correct then advanced alien life all came through one funnel of time conduit, wherein some species on that alien planet picked up rocks and began throwing overarm. This Throwing would transform that quadraped into a biped and eventually yield a intelligent civilization. This is what I mean by logically complete and logically more powerful. Stonethrowing can create bipedalism and then its byproduct of Running. But we cannot go the reverse of saying that Running creates bipedalism and or Throwing. So Throwing is the key foundation and bipedalism and running become subsets of Throwing. And it is logically more sound to say that every planet whether Earth or a alien planet with intelligent life that they all went through the same conduit of time on their planet where some creature that was quadraped began to throw rocks and stones, a unique and new behaviour on that planet, which transformed the species into biped and once biped became running. One of the major flaws of the Lieberman and Bramble report is that they never mention that Throwing is a rival behaviour and a complimentary behaviour. They cite how the buttock and shortened arms are beneficial to Running but they sloppily ignore the fact that in order to Throw you need to enlarge the buttock as a fulcrum lever and you obviously need to shorten the forearm to throw accurately. Lieberman and Bramble make it sound as though these anatomical changes were all for Running and utterly ignore a larger and more important behaviour--- Throwing, throwing and throwing. If Lieberman and Bramble were to make some metaphorial tour of the cosmos and landed on some thousand different planets all containing intelligent life then Lieberman and Bramble would be saying that Running created that intelligent life, but why would running create intelligent life in the cheetah that has evolved to run ever so much faster. The more logical and powerful idea is that Throwing was the unique behaviour that created bipedalism and then running and then intelligent civilization. What is funny about this whole thing is that NATURE published Lieberman and Bramble even though their report is what I would call quasi-science or sloppy-thinking science. And yet the greatest logical theory of Anthropology-- Stonethrowing theory, that the editors of NATURE will not publish. I think it is because there is so much corruption in the world, not only in politics but in science. Where weak and meathead theories get published by NATURE but the most powerful theory is ignored. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > --- quoting Reuters in full because I need to debate line for line --- > Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say > > Wed Nov 17, 4:05 PM ET (snip) > The conventional theory is that running was > a by-product of bipedalism, or the ability to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "We're saying 'no, walking won't do that, > but running will."' Lieberman and Bramble are grossly wrong when they make this leap of faith for running. They failed logic by ignoring another behaviour that is greater and more powerful than either walking or running. The behaviour of Stonethrowing. Running will not fill the gap of 2 million years of evolving. And it is this numerical number gap that ties and relates to bone and muscle morphology. Every bone and muscle change that Lieberman and Bramble mention that facilitates Running also facilitates Throwing. Throwing created walking and later enhanced walking so much that it created running. So the gap of 2 to 3 million years that Lieberman and Bramble associate that gap for Running is mostly a gap for Throwing. If we look at every bone complex and muscle complex that Lieberman and Bramble tie to Running: (1) longer legs (2) shorter forearm (3) increased buttock (4) vertibral disks And then factor in Throwing we begin to see that shorter forearms increase Throwing proficiency by perhaps 90% whereas shorter forearms increase Running by a mere 20%. Increased buttock increased Throwing by 75% whereas it increased Running by a mere 10%. What Lieberman and Bramble fail to understand why there is a 2 to 3 million year gap between Walking and then Running is that the majority of bone and muscle re-configuration from living in trees to Throwing rocks and stones on the ground and living on the ground is that those bones and muscles were re-configured to increase Throwing more than changing for Running. When you ignore Throwing and focus only on walking and running then you can make a big blooper of a mistake by saying there is a time gap of 2 to 3 million years. But when you focus on Throwing then there is no time gap from walking to running because Throwing created the walking and after much muscle and bone evolutionary change to an even more skilled Thrower that those changes compliment the ability to turn from walking to running. What Bramble and Lieberman failed to list is the changes of bone for Throwing: (1) Rotator Cuff (2) opposable thumb (3) finger hand bones to lift, carry and throw rocks (4) backbones to act is lever and fulcrum in throwing (5) legbones to act as lever and fulcrum (6) removal of sight impediments such as hair, browridges (7) stereoscopic vision because rock throwing targets When you include Throwing then it is easy to see that walking becomes a subset and that walking was created by Throwing, so that Throwing came first then came walking and as you increase the ability to throw with skill that running enhanced that throwing. So Throwing is the driving force and throwing is the sole behaviour that transformed apelike creatures to produce humanity. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote > > The conventional theory is that running was > > a by-product of bipedalism, or the ability to [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > throwing is the sole behaviour that transformed apelike creatures to > produce humanity. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. I especially like the details in the list you presented above. Nevertheless, it appears that you don't fully understand the nature of the problem/issue. For example, your hypothesis lacks details of why it first appeared at the time and place it did appear and why this behavior--stone throwing--did not first appear later or earlier than you designate. Most importantly (and most plainly missing from your thinking) is the fact that any hypothesis you offer has to dovetail into providing us a better understanding of the selective origins of other hominid/human traits and behaviors, not just stonethrowing (which, at best, involves a relatively small subset of the traits and behaviors that are peculiar to hominids/humans). If you can't do this (and you are deluding yourself if you think you have already) then you really don't have a viable hypothesis. Your hypothesis predicts a stonethrowing ape. It does not predict humans. Back to the drawing board. Jim An interesting finding years ago was that reconstructed Acheulean hand axes, when thrown, land point down 90% of the time. Considering the sexual differences in how we throw objects, there can't be any doubt that adult males are wired for throwing objects, and it is certainly much easier to kill a bird or squirrel with a stone that chasing it. While H. habilis was primarily vegetarian, oldawan technology was unchanged from H. habilis to early H. erectus, and hand axes don't appear for several hundred thousand years after hunting started. So either H. erectus didn't use stone throwing for the first few hundred thousand years, or, more likely, they threw small stones much earlier, maybe all along. Meanwhile, however, when H. erectus appears, there is a huge migration of grazing animals into Africa, just when hunting became a way of life. The scenario could involve group hunting, using projectiles on young, wounded or aged ungulates. At the same time they could have resorted to smaller animals if necessary to supplement lean times. If you postulate that erectus migrated over long distances very early in pursuit of meat, then running and throwing could have evolved simultaneously. Following grazing animals over long distances would have required at least jogging, and many of the physical characteristics Lieberman and Bramble list are more specific for ambulating - like the springlike tendons, arched foot fascia, and broad joint surfaces. You could argue that Neanderthals had a smaller territory to cover than moderns, and did not run. But they may have de-evolved from running by living in an ice ace environment. Even H. habilis travelled many miles for raw materials for their stones. BTW, other primates have stereoscopic vision. Other anatomic functions 'archimedes' lists could relate to carrying materials over long distances. >> > The conventional theory is that running was >> > a by-product of bipedalism, or the ability to [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > Jim > An interesting finding years ago was that reconstructed Acheulean hand axes, > when thrown, land point down 90% of the time. Considering the sexual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for the first few hundred thousand years, or, more likely, they threw small > stones much earlier, maybe all along. Meanwhile, however, when H. erectus Interesting that you should mention Homo habilis and Homo erectus. I do not have enough facts one either one to assemble a history-theory on these two species. I have sort of taken the view that Homo habilis gave rise to Homo erectus. So in my view of humanity is that of a line starting with Oreopithecus to Orrorin to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to CroMagnon to humanity. From the story that Mark is telling though leads me to think that perhaps Homo habilis never merged into Homo erectus and that perhaps Homo habilis was like Neanderthals. So that the line leading to humanity would omit Homo habilis and jump from Orrorin to Homo erectus. I do not know, for I simply do not have enough facts. I do have however the finest theory of anthropology, ie, Stonethrowing theory to guide me. If it is true what Mark is saying about Homo habilis compared to Homo erectus then the Stonethrowing theory would say that Homo habilis was another Neanderthal species that was extincted by Homo erectus and that Homo habilis did not share the line leading to CroMagnon. And it is Stonethrowing theory that can tell us whether habilis was connected to erectus or not. If habilis was this vegetarian even in the prescence of erectus suggests they were never connected. > appears, there is a huge migration of grazing animals into Africa, just when > hunting became a way of life. The scenario could involve group hunting, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > early in pursuit of meat, then running and throwing could have evolved > simultaneously. Following grazing animals over long distances would have The Stonethrowing theory does not need running to advance the bone and muscle systems. Throwing is going to shorten the forearm. Throwing is going to cushion and pad the spinal cord and vertebrae. Throwing is going to make the legs balanced and quick spurts of sprint to act as a lever and fulcrum in throwing. Throwing has many more advantages than Running. Throwing will kill rivals for female mates. Throwing will increase meat. Throwing will ward of enemy tribes and animal predators. What advantages does running have other than to run away from danger. So when we list the advantages of throwing compared to the advantages of running we quickly see that Throwing is a far more advantageous behaviour. > required at least jogging, and many of the physical characteristics > Lieberman and Bramble list are more specific for ambulating - like the > springlike tendons, arched foot fascia, and broad joint surfaces. You could > argue that Neanderthals had a smaller territory to cover than moderns, and > did not run. But they may have de-evolved from running by living in an ice Stonethrowing theory would say that the bones and muscles of CroMagnon were far superior in throwing than Neanderthal. And whenever bands of CroMagnon met with Neanderthals they would extinct them by throwing them to death. > ace environment. Even H. habilis travelled many miles for raw materials for > their stones. BTW, other primates have stereoscopic vision. Other anatomic > functions 'archimedes' lists could relate to carrying materials over long > distances. Well I would like to get a full list starting with a primate that does not throw at all and is quadraped such as Orangutan. Then move to the chimpanzee that is quadraped but has throwing underarm behaviour. So what bones and muscles need be changed of a orangutan that cannot throw underarm yet a chimpanzee can throw underarm. Then the list would go from quadraped underarm throwing to that of overarm throwing and the beginning of bipedalism as a endresult of overarm throwing. Then the bones and muscles needed to be changed in order to get this Overarm throwing and bipedalism into that of proficient overarm throwing and as a endresult the walking turns to fleet footed running. In the entire process of change the Overarm throwing creates bipedalism and as the overarm throwing becomes more and more exacting of its target the bipedal walk turns more and more into running. So unlike Mark, I am saying that Throwing created bipedalism and the increasing skill of throwing turned the walk into running, and so throwing and running did not co-evolve as independent behaviours that Mark suggests. Throwing is the dominant behaviour of change. In fact, the Stonethrowing theory can predict where running first took place. It took place not because of what Mark is suggesting that Homo followed herds of ungulates. Instead it sprang into existence in the need for a Throwing Homo species to make a sprint like dash before releasing his rocks. We can see it on baseball pitchers mound. Suppose humans could only walk and not run, then how would pitchers in baseball throw a fastball? The wind up is that short sprint like dash before the pitcher releases the ball. So before Homo could throw overarm long distances, he threw overarm short distances with a walk gait which we can imagine as a boulder over the head and walking up to a rival or a animal and pommelling the target. Likewise a baseball pitcher that has to stand stationary and release his pitch. So the need to throw overarm long distance requires a short sprint like dash and release the rocks. In this manner Running was borne or created where only walking existed before. Thanks to Mark, I think I found where the first creation of running came about-- the need to make overarm throwing longer distance and greater force and accuracy. Walking will not give that boost to overarm throwing but a short dash sprint and release of rocks in throwing will. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Have you ever tried actually hunting with rocks? You should try it sometime. It would be an eye opening experience. If you are good you might kill a lizard or two. Even a modern human has difficulty hunting with rocks. It would have been impossible for our chimpanzee-like LCA. Your thinking that bipedalism emerged due to the fact that it enabled stone-throwing and stick-wielding is reasonable. That it emerged to achieve ends that involved hunting is ridiculous. Jim > An interesting finding years ago was that reconstructed Acheulean hand axes, > when thrown, land point down 90% of the time. Interesting. I didn't know this. > Considering the sexual > differences in how we throw objects, there can't be any doubt that adult > males are wired for throwing objects, and it is certainly much easier to > kill a bird or squirrel with a stone that chasing it. I agree it's a weapon. I disagree that it would have gotten much use as a hunting implement. IMO, what they achieved with these weapons was protection of communally claimed territory (against food competitor species, against other tribes/communities, and even against predators themselves) which was part of their strategy to survive the implications of the dry season in this monsoon climate. In all cases the hominid entities producing this behavior were collective entities, communities, tribes, etc. > While H. habilis was > primarily vegetarian, oldawan technology was unchanged from H. habilis to > early H. erectus, and hand axes don't appear for several hundred thousand > years after hunting started. So either H. erectus didn't use stone throwing > for the first few hundred thousand years, or, more likely, they threw small > stones much earlier, maybe all along. Yes. H. erectus threw smaller stones (so did Apith) but they had nothing (or very little) to do with hunting. > Meanwhile, however, when H. erectus > appears, there is a huge migration of grazing animals into Africa, just when > hunting became a way of life. Possibly. (But this can't explain how the behavior of rock-throwing, stick-wielding originated.) > The scenario could involve group hunting, > using projectiles on young, wounded or aged ungulates. Yes. Especially during the try season when these migrating animals might be desperate to find sources of water, which might often be found only on territory that our ancestors occupied. But it's important to understand that the behavior originally emerged for reasons that have nothing to do with hunting and instead have to do with a communal strategy to maintain territorial resources so that the community as a whole can survive the depths of the dry season. > At the same time > they could have resorted to smaller animals if necessary to supplement lean > times. If you postulate that erectus migrated over long distances very > early in pursuit of meat, then running and throwing could have evolved > simultaneously. I don't think this is likely. H. erectus did not venture far into treeless habitat. > Following grazing animals over long distances would have > required at least jogging, and many of the physical characteristics > Lieberman and Bramble list are more specific for ambulating - like the > springlike tendons, arched foot fascia, and broad joint surfaces. As I see it these would have evolved as they became more and more accustomed to remaining on the ground, even when attached by predators. > You could > argue that Neanderthals had a smaller territory to cover than moderns, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > functions 'archimedes' lists could relate to carrying materials over long > distances. Archi's hypothesis lacks details of why it first appeared at the time and place it did appear and why this behavior--stone throwing--did not first appear later or earlier than he designates. Most importantly (and most plainly missing from his thinking) is the fact that any hypothesis he offers has to dovetail into providing us a better understanding of the selective origins of other hominid/human traits and behaviors, not just stonethrowing (which, at best, involves a relatively small subset of the traits and behaviors that are peculiar to hominids/humans). In my hypothesis the stonethrowing behavior originally has nothing at all to do with hunting or defending against predators, as it does in Archi's hypothesis. (The supposition that our chimpanzee-like LCA ancestor would suddenly start hunting with weapons is ridiculous.) In my hypothesis the earliest Apiths, residing in isolated patches of forest in a habitat dictated by an annual dry season, began employing weapons so that they could achieve communnal maintainance of finite resources at their community so that they could survive the dry season (and it's implications). Jim First, Homo habilis probably evolved along with "robust australopithicines" as offspring from australopethicus aferensis a little over two million years ago in response to the coolong and drying of Africa. H. erectus surfaces a scant 200,000 yrs later as H. habilis dissapears. It is easy to find sources and read about this. I am not suggesting that H. h. killed squirrels with stones. It would be very reasonable, however, to suppose that they, through group culture, created a substinence of catching up with and cornering wounded animals and stoning them, like how prisoniers were killed in biblical times (evolutionary psychologists could have a field day with that one). It is too much of a coincidence, with hand axes behaving the way they do, to not at least consider that they were thrown frequently. If a clade of H. h. hunted with stones, they could have easily become the ancestors of H. erectus. The meat would allow them larger bodies and the group hunting would create egalitarian impulses. Suddenly, H. h disappears and H. e is present. I am suggesting that it is not unreasonable to surmise that throwing stones was part of their repertoire as they evolved. Most of us involved with kids and athletics know that boys think that 'girls can't throw'. There is a huge difference. Think that a professional baseball player can hit a target a couple of inches wide or less 90 feet away at 95 miles an hour (as in 'hitting the corner of the plate'). My son could do that at 80 miles an hour and never made it past high school baseball, so there is a huge population of men that can do similar. Probably most can hit a target of a foot at 50 feet throwing 60 mph. As coach of his team when he was five, I'd say 75% of the boys picked up throwing immediately with excellent form. In my daughter's team a couple of years older, it was a painful process that took all year, and still most never really got it. As far as the hunting with a stone, I got that from a friend of mine years ago. We worked together as farm laborers in the summer. While I went to school in the fall, he camped out in Wyoming. He assured me that if desperate, he would just kill small animals with stones to live. Most stone age societies don't have to resort to this on a daily basis, but there is no reason to believe that most men couldn't teach themselves how to do that. >> An interesting finding years ago was that reconstructed Acheulean hand >> axes, [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > Jim "Mark Feldman" <mfeldman1@charter.net> wrote It would be > very reasonable, however, to suppose that they, through group culture, Through group culture? What does this supposedly mean? A theory of human evolution is supposed to explain the seletive origins of human intellectual and social proficiencies (what you're calling "group culture). Consequently the antithesis of a valid hypothesis is one that just assumes it's existence, as you've done here. > created a substinence of catching up with and cornering wounded animals and > stoning them, like how prisoniers were killed in biblical times > (evolutionary psychologists could have a field day with that one). It is > too much of a coincidence, with hand axes behaving the way they do, to not > at least consider that they were thrown frequently. The point is that the primary behavior of the niche (stretching all the way back to the LCA 8.1 mya) couldn't have been hunting. If a clade of H. h. > hunted with stones, they could have easily become the ancestors of H. > erectus. You're delving off into theoretic fantasy now. It doesn't matter what H.E. is doing. What matters is how chimps at 8.1 mya could have--according to rock throwing theory of yourself and Achi dimwit Plutonium--begun to hunt effectively. You just want to skip over this and talk about whether or not H.E. at 2.1 mya had meat for dinner very often. You and Archi have to wake up and smell the coffee. Nobody disputes that H.E. was capable with tools/weapons. The question is what got them to this point. The meat would allow them larger bodies and the group hunting would > create egalitarian impulses. Suddenly, H. h disappears and H. e is present. > I am suggesting that it is not unreasonable to surmise that throwing stones > was part of their repertoire as they evolved. You obviously aren't reading what I'm writing behause I've been saying that stone-throwing (and stick wielding) have been evolving since 8.1 mya and this behavior is the main selective cause of bipedalism. > Most of us involved with kids and athletics know that boys think that 'girls > can't throw'. There is a huge difference. Think that a professional [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > assured me that if desperate, he would just kill small animals with stones > to live. Think about what you're saying here. I mean, really think about it. Or better yet go ahead and try it. Then after you've tried it, and failed miseably, you should think about whether or not a chimp would survive very long it it was forced to survive by hunting with rocks. This is what you're trying to tell is happened with the LCA. I mean the whole notion is ludicrous--when you really think about it. Most stone age societies don't have to resort to this on a daily > basis, but there is no reason to believe that most men couldn't teach > themselves how to do that. Yada, yada, yada. Nobody cares. Now you've skipped all the way up to stone age men. > >> An interesting finding years ago was that reconstructed Acheulean hand > >> axes, [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > > > Jim First, let me correct myself. I meant to say a pitcher throws 60 feet. Anthropologists have for several years made a big deal out of what the observe as culture in primate societies. What they refer to is group behavior. In one famous example, termites were seen to use long sticks or reeds, wet with saliva, to catch termites, I think in the Gombe The young learn this from the adults by imitation. Yet chimps in other territories don't do this - until they witness the technique. When the use of the technique becomes widespread, they refer to that behavior as a cultural trait. Now imagine H. h, starving for food in an increasingly desolate savannah, stumbling upon a wounded ungulate. They're omnivores to begin with, and wouldn't deny themselves a meal of meat, (usually a delicacy to chimps). Somehow they learn to follow the heard waiting for wounded stragglers, and this becomes their group culture. > It would be >> very reasonable, however, to suppose that they, through group culture, [quoted text clipped - 196 lines] >> > >> > Jim > First, let me correct myself. I meant to say a pitcher > throws 60 feet. How about when he runs to the plate to catch a bunt and throws it to 2nd baseman for a double play. > termites were seen to use long sticks or reeds, wet with > saliva, to catch termites See there I would correct this sentence, John, except the error is so obvious that I really don't need to. (but I can poke fun at the author cause it is funny) >, I think in the Gombe The young > learn this from the adults by imitation. Those clever little termites, learning how to catch each other with sticks, this is where the must have learned to start clubbing each other on the head, later we see termites evolve sagittal crest for the protection of the cranial, lol. > Yet chimps in > other territories don't do this - until they witness the > technique. Why, I tell you, termites teaching chimps. > When the use of the technique becomes > widespread, they refer to that behavior as a cultural [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > culture. "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in > message When you manage to teach McGinn anything that truely would be a feat, cultural or otherwise. Most here don't even waste the time trying, as we are too busy observing termite schools.  SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ > First, let me correct myself. I meant to say a pitcher throws 60 feet. > > Anthropologists have for several years made a big deal out of what the > observe as culture in primate societies. Yes, tool-usage is fairly common. We have crows that are capable of the same level of tool usage. What they refer to is group > behavior. In one famous example, termites were seen to use long sticks or > reeds, wet with saliva, to catch termites, I think in the Gombe The young > learn this from the adults by imitation. Yet chimps in other territories > don't do this - until they witness the technique. When the use of the > technique becomes widespread, they refer to that behavior as a cultural > trait. Culture at this level is common in most mammals Now imagine H. h, starving for food in an increasingly desolate > savannah, stumbling upon a wounded ungulate. They're omnivores to begin > with, and wouldn't deny themselves a meal of meat, (usually a delicacy to > chimps). Somehow they learn to follow the heard waiting for wounded > stragglers, and this becomes their group culture. Yes, this is the hollywood version of early hominids. It has nothing to do with evidence or science. Unfortunately there are a lot of scientists who don't think beyond the simplistic and erroneous model that you present. The biggest problem is that the model you present explains nothing. Jim That wasn't an explanation of human evolution. You wanted to know what primate culture was, so I told you. >> First, let me correct myself. I meant to say a pitcher throws 60 feet. >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Jim "Mark Feldman" <mfeldman1@charter.net> wrote > That wasn't an explanation of human evolution. You > wanted to know what primate culture was, so I told > you. Okay, call it culture if you wish, but there was nothing about your description of primate cultural behaviors (imitation and tool-usage) that would indicate that what you are calling culture is unique to primates. There are many species capable of this level of "culture." Most of them are mammals but some of them are birds (crows, parrots). Even your supposition that behavioral practices are spreading from one territory to another by way of cultural exchange (imitation) is something we'd expect to find in many other species. Any way you cut it, the hard facts are that our chimpanzee- like early hominids had cultural abilities at about the level of a dog. No creative regurgitation of the evidence is going to change this fact. Jim > First, Homo habilis probably evolved along with "robust > australopithicines" as offspring from australopethicus > aferensis a little over two million years ago in response > to the coolong and drying of Africa. H. erectus surfaces a > scant 200,000 yrs later as H. habilis dissapears. It is > easy to find sources and read about this. It's difficult however to believe such sources with the fossil evidence that supports this. Afarensis lacks the cranial anatomy to become a habiline, and appears to have been transitional to paraanthrops. > Suddenly, > H. h disappears So what is dmanisi 2. H.h is also 'homo heidelbergensis' > and H. e is present. I am suggesting that > it is not unreasonable to surmise that throwing stones was > part of their repertoire as they evolved. SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ [snip] : Most of us involved with kids and athletics know that boys think that 'girls : can't throw'. There is a huge difference. Think that a professional [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : years older, it was a painful process that took all year, and still most : never really got it. [snip] I grew up with three brothers and don't know if I could have matched them re: mph but as for accuracy? You bet - it's practice and survival combined. Jois > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jois Up until now I have not researched the genetic throwing abilities of human female to male. Perhaps it is genetic in a A,C,T,G code. I have not researched or explored whether the bones and muscles of males were selected for overarm throwing but not females. And because of the lack of efficiency of female overarm throwing compared to males proves the Stonethrowing theory in that it created bipedalism. And if it created bipedalism which then turned into running then fundamentally a female can never run as fast as the fastest men. Chimps throw underarm and are not bipeds. Human females can throw overarm but they are not proficient. Something about their elbow regions that seems out of place. Which tells me that overarm throwing efficiency is packed into the elbow region. So there must be some genetic advancement in the male elbow region that is missing in female bone anatomy. I think that no scientist has ever really focused serious attention on the differences between human female throwing compared to male and why females are so inefficient in throwing. And if there is a correlation between the speed of female running compared to male that is a direct linear relation to overarm throwing of female compared to male would nicely tie and connect throwing theory with biped-walking to running theory. The difference between male throwing overarm and female overarm suggests that Throwing was the primary and fundamental changing of primate form into human form. If throwing were not the primary changer of human form for the past 8 million years of Homo sapiens then female overarm throwing skill should be about equal to that of male overarm but they are vastly different. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
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.