 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / April 2005Orrorin compared to Sahelanthropus tchadensis
New news in the news tonight. Apparently a fossil of a skull found in Chad which is some 6 to 7 million years old may have walked upright according to its discoverer Michel Brunet. The evidence of bipedalism is from the position of the hole in the skull to accomodate the spinal cord which in humans is vertical but in apes is at an angle. Now Orrorin found in Kenya by the team of Senut and Pickford date their hominid at 6 million years old. The Stonethrowing theory agrees with both the finds of Brunet and Pickford and in fact Oreopithecus. What the media should be saying about all of this and what scientists should be saying about all of this is that Oreopithecus is the oldest human ancestor and that Tchadensis is connected to Orrorin. So Oreopithecus is the first upright, bipedal ancestor because Stonethrowing forced Oreopithecus to become bipedal. And this bipedal Oreopithecus migrated into northern Africa. By the time Oreopithecus reached what is now Chad in Africa we find the remains of Oreopithecus and call it Tchadensis. And about 1 million years later we find Tchadensis having migrated even further south east into what is now Kenya and Tchadensis becomes Orrorin. So if this concept is correct, or should I say theory, would then predict that somewhere between Italy and Chad, Africa will be found another hominid fossil between Oreopithecus and Tchadensis and this also will be found to be bipedal. If memory serves, Oreopithecus is about 10 million years old. That leaves bipedal fossils of hominids to be found between Italy and Chad, Africa that are 8 million and 9 million years old. Gradations of hominids between that of Oreopithecus to Tchadensis. And likewise, there should be found some hominid fossils that are gradation differences between Tchadensis in Chad to Orrorin in Kenya. So if we draw a straight line map of where Oreopithecus was found connecting the dot of where Tchadensis was found connecting the dot to where Orrorin was found, we should find intermediates between those dots on the map. Now I never thought the hole in the skull to accomodate the spinal cord was very important to bipedalism. And I am not sure whether it is and to what extent of importance. So this poses a new challenge to the Stonethrowing theory. That theory states that Stonethrowing came first and caused bipedalism. Stonethrowing created bipedalism. So if the position of that hole in the skull is important in having bipedalism, the question facing Stonethrowing theory is whether that hole is important for being able to throw rocks and stones. And chimpanzees do a little of underhand throwing so is their hole in the skull for the spinal cord closest to matching the hole for humans? And if the hole for humans was not vertical to ground, would that impede or hinder the Throwing behaviour? So this new news brings up new questions about Stonethrowing theory as I focus on a new issue of bone morphology-- that of the hole to accomodate the spinal cord. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies <snip> > What the media should be saying about all of this and what scientists > should be saying about all of this is that Oreopithecus is the oldest > human ancestor and that Tchadensis is connected to Orrorin. It is highly unlikely that Oreopithecus is a human ancestor. Though perhaps bipedal, there are far too many derived dissimilarities in Oreopithecus to put it on the ancestral line leading to the hominins. Oreopithecus possessed exceptionally unique, derived dentition, far, far, far different from any extant or fossil ape. Our dental cusp morphology is far more like the ancestral catarrhine condition. <snip> > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > far, far different from any extant or fossil ape. Our dental cusp > morphology is far more like the ancestral catarrhine condition. I think the history of anthropology sort of goes like this in broad terms, or will go like this. First when the new science was formed say around 1860s to 1950s it focused on teeth because teeth were the longest lasting fossils but teeth do not tell much and so skulls with teeth took the focus. So from about 1950s to 1990s the majority of anthropology work on prehumans was skulls. Then along came the idea of bipedalism as the central focus for anthropology, where everything centers on bipedalism which was about 1990s to present 2005. Summary of the focus of the science anthropology in broad terms: 1860s to 1950s was teeth as the central focus 1950s to 1990s was skulls as the central focus 1990s to 2005 was bipedalism as central focus 2005 onwards becomes Stonethrowing behaviour as central focus for science of Anthropology So to pick on Oreopithecus for his teeth and relegating Oreopithecus to some nonhuman ancestoral line based on teeth is being in my estimation highly unscientific. Would you not agree that the first primate to throw stones and rocks would have very primitive teeth even though it would be the most advanced animal on Earth at the time. And that throwing animal would eventually become bipedal due to the throwing yet still have primitive teeth. So the first primates that threw rocks and stones and which would eventually lead into a bipedal primate may have had little change in teeth dentition. Also, is there any primate contemporary to Oreopithecus that had a more advanced teeth formation. Stonethrowing theory would imply that as throwing increased, so did the meat eating in the diet increase. So what primate during the time of Oreopithecus is the most meat eating primate. But here we have to be somewhat careful because we know that baboons eat more meat than do chimpanzees yet chimpanzees throw rocks whereas baboons never throw rocks. As far as I know it is Oreopithecus which is the most meat eating primate around 10 million years ago. And certainly there is some evidence that Oreopithecus was bipedal. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > <snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 2005 onwards becomes Stonethrowing behaviour as central focus for science > of Anthropology 12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content). (+10 points per statement)* > So to pick on Oreopithecus for his teeth and relegating Oreopithecus to > some nonhuman ancestoral line based on teeth is being in my estimation > highly unscientific. 7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points per statement)* > Would you not agree that the first primate to throw stones and rocks would > have very primitive teeth even though it would be the most advanced animal > on Earth at the time. And that throwing animal would eventually become > bipedal due to the throwing yet still have primitive teeth. 7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points per statement)* > So the first primates that threw rocks and stones and which would > eventually lead into a bipedal primate may have had little change in teeth > dentition. 7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (+10 points per statement)* > Also, is there any primate contemporary to Oreopithecus that had a more > advanced teeth formation. 12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., without content). (+10 points per statement)* > Stonethrowing theory would imply that as throwing increased, so did the > meat eating in the diet increase. 13) Statement that is logically inconsistent. (+10 points per statement)* > So what primate during the time of > Oreopithecus is the most meat eating primate. But here we have to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As far as I know it is Oreopithecus which is the most meat eating primate > around 10 million years ago. 14) Shows (or admits) no/little knowledge of other people's previous work on the subject. (+ 40 points). 17) Is not aware of the widely published evidence that contradicts his/her hypothesis. (+ 10 points). 18) Repetitively "forgets" (or ignores) factual information, provided by others in earlier discussion thread(s), that disproves (or is strong evidence against) their hypothesis. (+ 30 points).* > And certainly there is some evidence that > Oreopithecus was bipedal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots > of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies * http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html Listen, you dill, what Jason was explaining to you was that the teeth of Oreopithecus were not primitive, but highly *derived* - in other words, evolved into a form quite unlike any other old world monkey or ape. Humans, apes and early hominids' teeth are much more like old world monkeys than Oreopithecus. So for Oreopithecus to be a human ancestor, its line would have had to evolve the unusual teeth, and then evolve back to monkey-like teeth. If you knew anything at all about evolutionary theory, you would realise that this is extremely unlikely, and extremely strong evidence that Oreopithecus is not a hominid ancestor, but an interesting and unusual cousin... Ross Macfarlane [snip] > > As far as I know it is Oreopithecus which is the most meat eating > primate > > around 10 million years ago. [snip] > Listen, you dill, what Jason was explaining to you was that the teeth > of Oreopithecus were not primitive, but highly *derived* - in other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ross Macfarlane Not to mention the fact that Oreopithecus is NOT 10 million years old, but is only about 7-6.5 million years old. Doesn't leave much time for Oreo teeth to evolve into to 6-million-year-old Orrorin tugensis teeth. :-) Dar > > Summary of the focus of the science anthropology > > in broad terms: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 12) Makes a statement that is clearly vacuous (i.e., > without content). (+10 points per statement)* Vacuous? <snip> > > Would you not agree that the first primate to > > throw stones and rocks would have very primitive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be > false. (+10 points per statement)* Widely agreed on to be false? This comes from the mouth of somebody who admits he has no hypothesis at all. > > So the first primates that threw rocks and stones > > and which would eventually lead into a bipedal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 7) Makes a statement that is widely agreed on to be > false. (+10 points per statement)* How do you figure? > > Also, is there any primate contemporary to > > Oreopithecus that had a more advanced teeth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (i.e., without content). > (+10 points per statement)* Clearly vacuous? How do you figure? > > Stonethrowing theory would imply that as throwing > > increased, so did the meat eating in the diet increase. > > 13) Statement that is logically inconsistent. > (+10 points per statement)* Well, I would agree that Archie's speculation is, obviously, inconsistent with the evidence. He's trying to force upon us the supposition that stone throwing could have only been, originally, beneficial if it involved hunting. This supposition is disputed by observation of extent chimps whose stone throwing abilities are hardly proficient enough to hunt and by the tooth evidence that indicates that early hominids did not eat meat often, if at all. Nevertheless your criticism of his thinking seems political and not evidence based. As I've explicated previously, I believe stone-throwing, stick-wielding are part of the behavioral repertoire of early hominids. And these behaviors underlie the origins of bipedalism and tool usage. But the suggestion that we are obligated to link this behavior to hunting is shortsighted and even idiotic. Jim > Listen, you dill Dill - A herb, or the leaves or seeds of the same herb used for seasoning pickles. What's a dill. Are you insulting the dill or mike?  SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm > > Listen, you dill > > Dill - A herb, or the leaves or seeds of the same herb used > for seasoning pickles. > > What's a dill. Are you insulting the dill or mike? Dill. Drongo. Galah. Dropkick. Person of dimished mental capabilities. Archimedes Plutonium. Choose your own epithet... Ross Macfarlane :-) --- quoting a website from SCIENCE NEWS --- http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/10_18_97/fob1.htm October 18, 1997 Ancient Ape Shuffles to Prominence by B. Bower Scientists have long viewed an upright, two-legged stride as a trait unique to hominids, the approximately 6-million-year-old human evolutionary family. However, it's time to give that assumption its walking papers, contend two anthropologists. According to their new fossil analysis, a 9-million- to 7-million-year-old apelike animal also spent much of its time standing upright, methodically shuffling short distances to collect fruit and other edible goodies on what was once a Mediterranean island. This achievement represents a small step for hominids, but it's a giant leap for apekind. Until now, it appeared that the fossil apes that preceded hominids could only climb, swing through trees, and walk on all fours. Further study of the ancient Mediterranean creature, known as Oreopithecus bambolii, should help to clarify how evolutionary pressures led to an upright stance, say Meike Köhler and Salvador Moyà-Solà, both of the M. Crusafont Paleontological Institute in Sabadell, Spain. "This a major contribution," remarks anthropologist David Pilbeam of Harvard University. "It convincingly shows that [an upright stance] did not evolve only in hominids." Oreopithecus fossils have been excavated for more than a century in parts of central Italy. The ancient ape, along with many other mammals, inhabited this area when it was an island in the Mediterranean Sea. About 40 years ago, a few researchers suggested that Oreopithecus possessed skeletal features consistent with upright walking. Their unorthodox view was generally rejected for lack of sufficient anatomical evidence. Over the past 2 years, Köhler and Moyà-Solà have studied previously undescribed Oreopithecus specimens held at the Natural History Museum in Basel, Switzerland. The partial fossils include sections of the lower back, pelvis, leg, and foot. Overall, the creature's lower body falls in between that of apes and australopithecines, an early group of hominid species, the scientists report in the Oct. 14 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Like hominids, Oreopithecus possessed a lower back that arched forward and a vertically aligned knee joint, two features crucial to upright walking, the Spanish investigators contend. Parts of the ancient ape's pelvis resemble corresponding areas of Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid species that includes the partial skeleton of the specimen known as Lucy, they add. However, Oreopithecus displays a foot like that of no other primate. Its big toe sticks out at about 90o from the remaining toes, all of which are shorter and straighter than toes of living apes. The foot provided a firm base for an upright stance, although its birdlike, tripod design probably restricted the animal to a short, shuffling stride. Life on an island inhabited by no predators and containing abundant foraging opportunities apparently fostered the evolution of Oreopithecus' unique style of walking, the researchers theorize. Further study of Oreopithecus may help researchers sort out influences on the evolution of upright walking in hominids, Pilbeam notes. --- end quoting a website from SCIENCE NEWS --- Generally it has been found in astronomy and geology and paleontology and anthropology that the age reckoning is usually the "older age" and that as more refined date testing instruments or better specimens found that the age or date keeps getting pushed back in time as the "older age is more representative of the truth". So the above report reckons Oreopithecus at about 9 million years. The reason I keep calling Oreopithecus of 10 million years is because of Stonethrowing theory. That I need about 1 million years of time for a new behaviour of Throwing rocks and stones in a preOreopithecus that was quadraped and for that Throwing behaviour to cause anatomical bone morphology changes in preOreopithecus to become a biped Oreopithecus. It probably took more than 1 million years for Throwing to create bipedalism in preOreopithecus but 10 million years is a nice round number to work with. So someone does not like the dentition of Oreopithecus to be in the line leading to Homo sapiens. Then I would ask what other primate of 10 million years ago, other than Oreopithecus, would they call a candidate for the Homo line. And a related question: was Oreopithecus of 10 million years ago the most meat eating primate in existence? Keeping in mind that the chimpanzee of today is a primitive stonethrower of underarm throwing and quadraped that is not the most meat eating of the apes and monkeys for baboons eat more meat and do not throw. You see, I am not aware of any other primate candidate for the Homo line at 10 million years ago other than Oreopithecus. So I think the dentition should be given another evaluation. If anyone rules out Oreopithecus, what they have to do is replace Oreopithecus with another "better candidate". So our friend here from UCDAVIS complaining about Oreopithecus dentition, the burden is on him to provide another candidate fossil that lived 10 million years ago for the line that leads to Homo sapiens. I think the part above about the big toe of Oreopithecus is a fluke fossilization and not something inherent to Oreopithecus bone anatomy. I think the part above of Oreopithecus on an isolated island of Italy is an exaggeration of the conditions some 10 million years ago for I suspect it was not isolated and that Oreopithecus would wander southward into Africa and become Sahelanthropus tchadensis and eventually Orrorin and eventually Homo sapiens. So I think this "isolation" is too much of an exaggeration on the part of those evaluating Oreopithecus. One thing I do like about the Oreopithecus story is that we do know that when a species confronts the limit of its range of habitat-- apelike creature far north some 10 million years ago-- is the region where the most accelerated evolution takes place. Evolution works faster on the boundary of a species habitat because it is challenged by so many environmental factors. So it is more likely that the Homo line evolved in Europe where Stonethrowing first occurred which would then create a biped preHomo which would later invade Africa. Evolution theory suggests that a new species is more likely to be created from old stock species at the boundary of its habitat rather than deep inside its boundary. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies <snip> > So someone does not like the dentition of Oreopithecus to be in the line > leading to Homo sapiens. Then I would ask what other primate of 10 million [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not the most meat eating of the apes and monkeys for baboons eat more meat > and do not throw. The dentition of just about *any* other miocene ape is closer than the dentition of Oreopithecus. Oreopithecus had high sheering crests indicative of a highly folivorous diet. I suspect strongly that you are not terribly familiar with the principles of cladistic analysis and suspect strongly that you're not the least bit familiar with the dentition of Oreopithecus for if you were, you'd likely not make the ridiculous claims you are making. That there aren't currently known any terribly good candidate ancestors does not somehow elevate Oreopithecus either. > You see, I am not aware of any other primate candidate for the Homo line at > 10 million years ago other than Oreopithecus. So I think the dentition should > be given another evaluation. That and 4 bucks might buy you something as Starbucks. > If anyone rules out Oreopithecus, what they have to do is replace > Oreopithecus with another "better candidate". So our friend here from UCDAVIS > complaining about Oreopithecus dentition, the burden is on him to provide > another candidate fossil that lived 10 million years ago for the line that > leads to Homo sapiens. This is false. I have no burden on me. Oreopithecus is a poor candidate. Period. The dentition is too derived to reasonably consider it a potential human ancestor. That you're not aware of other fossils doesn't change this. Now, kindly learn something. It appears you know nothing. > --- quoting a website from SCIENCE NEWS --- > http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/10_18_97/fob1.htm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > by B. Bower {snip] > According to their new fossil analysis, a 9-million- to > 7-million-year-old apelike animal {....snip] > --- end quoting a website from SCIENCE NEWS --- > Generally it has been found in astronomy and geology and paleontology and > anthropology that the age reckoning is usually the "older age" and that as > more refined date testing instruments or better specimens found that the age > or date keeps getting pushed back in time as the "older age is more > representative of the truth". In this case, "generally" doesn't count for squat. The Science News website quoted above is more than 7 years old. The dating of Oreopithecus in many old (and some more recent) papers is often given as being 9-7 million years old. When I first read of Oreopithecus it was in a 1972 book authored by David Pilbeam, which gave an age of 12-10 million years old, but contrary to what you write above ("pushed back in time"), the dating of Oreopithecus has steadily been pushed forward in time. I've just done a little review of the papers I have giving dating for Oreopithecus. Most estimates are made from correlation with associated fauna, and none of them suggests any date earlier than MN 11 (Mammal Neogene unit 11) which, in the most recent paper I have has a lower boundary of 8.7 million years. Placement in MN 11 is from an old paper by Unger and Kay (1995), which gives the locality as Baccinello. There are some newer dates from Baccinello which are radiometric and not from faunal correlation, of which I'll get to below. In fact, most papers put Oreopithecus in MN 12 and MN 13. MN 12 has a range between 7.9-7.5 million years ago and MN 13 has a lower boundary of 6.8 or 7.3 million years ago. Upper boundary (latest date) would be sometime later than this but earlier than the lower boundary of MN 14, which is 4.9 million years. Reference for these MN 11, 12, 13 and 14 ranges is: Agusti J, Cabrera L, Garcea M, Krijgsman, W, Oms O & Pares JM (2001). A calibrated mammal scale for the Neogene of Western Europe. State of the art. Earth-Science Reviews 52: 247-260. A quote here from David Begun (2002:356). "...fauna from the [Oreopithecus bambolii]localities has been dated to MN 12 and MN 13 (Hurzeler and Engesser, 1976; Andrews et al., 1996; Harrison and Rook, 1997), or about 6-7 Ma (Steininger, 1999)..." Begun, DR (2002). European Hominoids. In: Hartwig WC (ed.) The Primate Fossil Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 339-368. I get the feeling that Begun is only giving the later end of the range here. In any case, I'll get back to the Baccinello site I mentioned above which was placed in MN 11 by Unger and Kay (1995). Reference here is: Rook L, Renne P, Benvenuti M & Papini M (2000). Geochronology of Oreopithecus-bearing succession at Baccinello (Italy) and the extinction pattern of European Miocene hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 39: 577-582. This paper gives 40Ar/39Ar dating results for the Oreopithecus-bearing deposits at Baccinello as 7.55 +/- 0.03 Ma (mean of six grains with indistinguishable ages ranging from 7.50-7.61 +/- ~0.1 Ma), and also tells of an earlier K-Ar date of 8.4 Ma, which Rook et al explain the older date as "possibly due to older biotites in the K-Ar sample" (p. 580). I could go on with other recent papers I have on Oreopithecus that give dating ranges, but none of them exceeds the previously mentioned 9-7 Ma dating, and all of the recent papers place Oreopithecus in MN 12 and MN 13. Thus, according to everything I have found in this review, Oreopithecus existed no earlier than the K-Ar 8.4 Ma date from Baccinello, and more likely the 7.9 Ma date given by Agusti et al. for the lower boundary of MN 12. Say 8 million years ago, and existed as late as MN 13 which is, as I stated earlier, somewhere in the range of 7-6.5 million years ago. Best estimate from my review of these papers is that Oreopithecus fossils from all known localities fall roughly between about 8-6.5 million years ago. > So the above report reckons Oreopithecus at about 9 million years. The above report, a news story from 1997. Not very reliable. > The reason > I keep calling Oreopithecus of 10 million years is because of Stonethrowing > theory. Well, I realize I'm probably not going to convince you that Oreopithecus is not 10 million years old, but perhaps someone else will be helped here with this information which is more recent than your 1997 news report augmented by your speculation that Oreopithecus is even older than 9 million years. Dar (some snipping) > In this case, "generally" doesn't count for squat. The Science News > website quoted above is more than 7 years old. The dating of [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Dar Recently there was a second radioactive decay dating of the Shroud of Torin. The first such radioactive dating put the Shroud in the 13th century. Trouble was the sample tested had been a piece of the border that was contaminated. On the second science testing the date for the Shroud was put at the time of Jesus. And colloborated by textile experts of 1st century cloth. So we can begin to appreciate that some ancient fossils tucked away in storage boxes in Switzerland for many years, or even the radioactive dating procedure could have been flawed or contaminated. If I recall correctly the dating of Orrorin by Senut and Pickford was a careful and meticulous and rigorous project. Where they dated the layers of rock and sediment in which the fossils were actually found. If I remember correctly some dating experts from Japan were called in to get the dates as precise as possible. So if Senut and Pickford had found Oreopithecus instead of Orrorin then I would be confident of the dates they would eventually ascribe to Oreopithecus for they would have attacked that problem of precise dating as best as possible. Unfortunately, the discoverers of Oreopithecus were not so keen as to a precise date derived from rock layers. If Senut and Pickford had done the Oreopithecus dig and dating, I am confident that it would have come in as 10 to 9 million years ago. But since less keen anthropologists did the Oreopithecus dig, we end up with a sketchy date. And a rather self-serving date for those that want to marginalize the importance of Oreopithecus. I think what you should do is see how badly a radioactive dating of Orrorin fossils in boxes agrees or disagrees with the dating found. Whether a K or Ar dating of Orrorin agrees with the dates found by Senut and Pickford in the field. Another possibility is instead of relying on K, Ar or radioactive dating is what flora and fauna were found connected to Oreopithecus and the dates of them. If Oreopithecus lived when some prevalent animal became extinct 10 million years ago would put Oreopithecus as 10 million years old. So what I am saying is that we have a reliable date for Orrorin because of reliable methodology in the field when Orrorin was found. But as for Oreopithecus which was found in the 1950s or 1960s and with their crude digging we end up today with sketchy, unreliable and tainted dating. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > (some snipping) >> Well, I realize I'm probably not going to convince you that >> Oreopithecus is not 10 million years old, but perhaps someone else will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Torin. The first such radioactive dating put the Shroud in the 13th > century. Oreopithecus wove the Shroud? Wicked! >>> Well, I realize I'm probably not going to convince you that >>> Oreopithecus is not 10 million years old, but perhaps someone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Oreopithecus wove the Shroud? Wicked! Oreopithecus evolved into god, who concieved Jesus, We simply evolved into mortal humans a.k.a. recipient of god's love. Jesus is thus a hybrid and as a result when they reentered to tomb, the found a monkey and concluded that Jesus had risen. Unfortunately some time later Thomas had realized the error and a new thicker shroud was was made to cover that fact. And for 12 centuries people were stealing the shroud, so new ones need to be made all the time, until the bones finally turned to dust. I can't believe this wasn't obvious to everyone? BTW, there's supposed to be a new movie out about the hitch hikers guide to the Universe, is it any good? [Do I really need to put a grin on this post] > (some snipping) > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > storage boxes in Switzerland for many years, or even the radioactive > dating procedure could have been flawed or contaminated. > If I recall correctly the dating of Orrorin by Senut and Pickford was a > careful and meticulous and rigorous project. Where they dated the layers [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > of them. If Oreopithecus lived when some prevalent animal became extinct > 10 million years ago would put Oreopithecus as 10 million years old. That is exactly what the meaning of the Mammal Neogene units (MN)12 and MN 13 describe. It dates the mammal fauna found in association with Oreopithecus fossils. MN 12 to MN 13 range from 7.9 Ma to >6.8 Ma. The faunal association agrees completely with the radiometric dating of Baccinello Ar/Ar dating of soil deposits. Dar > So what I am saying is that we have a reliable date for Orrorin because of > reliable methodology in the field when Orrorin was found. But as for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots > of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > That is exactly what the meaning of the Mammal Neogene units (MN)12 and > MN 13 describe. It dates the mammal fauna found in association with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dar Well I was roaming the Internet tonight to get a feel of how accurate or reliable Ar/Ar dating is. Keeping in mind that fossils of Oreopithecus have lost its radiometric dating "Field Relationship" considering they were boxed up in Switzerland and dated. Considering that they were found when? 1950s to 1960s. And searching the Internet I get a sense that "excess Argon" e.g. Mount St. Helens report and New Zealand report make Ar/Ar unreliable. Unreliable unless the dating of "Field Relationships" accompanies the dating of the fossils. I wonder if modern day paleontologists can return to the site where Oreopithecus was found and do the Field Relationship tests of dating. Could these factors of unreliability put the date of Oreopithecus off by 2 million or more years? I do not have enough information to evaluate the situation. I suppose a new team of anthropologists could return to the original site or thereabouts and hunt for new Oreopithecus fossil finds and get a better date. If memory serves, when Senut and Pickford returned to their site in Kenya they were lucky to find more Orrorin fossils. So maybe a return to the site of Oreopithecus may yield new Oreopithecus fossils and a more reliable and accurate date. Hopefully some day in the future, dating of fossils can be made uniform procedure for one and all primate fossils so that one group of scientists is using the same techniques as other groups of scientists. I was looking to see whether Senut and Pickford used the same dating method on Orrorin as others did on Oreopithecus. And I was looking to see whether Ar/Ar has a bias in favor of young ages rather than old ages. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > That is exactly what the meaning of the Mammal Neogene units (MN)12 and > > MN 13 describe. It dates the mammal fauna found in association with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > were boxed up in Switzerland and dated. Considering that they were found > when? 1950s to 1960s. The type specimen was found in the late 19th century (Gervais 1872). The nearly complete but crushed skeleton was found in 1958. Oreopithecus specimens were discovered in the 1990s at Fiume Santo and at Baccinello (the site I earlier referenced Ar/Ar dating of 7.5 Ma). Read: Carneiri, E. & Mallegni, F. (2003). A new specimen and dental microwear in Oreopithecus bambolii. Homo. 54/1: 29-35. Fossils don't lose their "Field Relationship" when they are removed. The discoverers document the field context when they publish. Hurzeler documented the strata the crushed 1958 skeleton was found in, and the dating I've given was made on the basis of the fossil faunal associations found in that strata. These dates were not derived in the 1950s or 1960s, they are dates obtained from state-of-the-art techniques by people who have recently collected samples from the strata in which Oreopithecus fossils were discovered. Even the 1872 discovery strata was documented, although there was, at that time, no way of dating it. The "field relationship" of the later specimens found in the 1990s is especially documented to today's standards. Oreopithecus fossils themselves have never been dated directly. So it doesn't matter if they're boxed up and stored away. It is faunal associations and discovery strata itself which is dated. As long as these associations and stratigraphic context of discovery are documented and known, the dating can be, and has been done more recently by using modern techniques. > And searching the Internet I get a sense that "excess Argon" e.g. Mount > St. Helens report and New Zealand report make Ar/Ar unreliable. Aside from your questionable "sense", you have given no basis in fact for this unreliablity. > Unreliable > unless the dating of "Field Relationships" accompanies the dating of the > fossils. I've explained that "field relationship" (stratigraphic context of discovery) is documented and well known for all Oreopithecus fossils discovered. > I wonder if modern day paleontologists can return to the site where > Oreopithecus was found and do the Field Relationship tests of dating. I've already referenced that this has been done. Apparently you don't understand this has been done. > Could these factors of unreliability put the date of Oreopithecus off by 2 > million or more years? No. There are no "unreliability" factors. > I do not have enough information to evaluate the > situation. No doubt about that. On the other hand, I've read (and possess) these primary peer-reviewed papers on Oreopithecus dating and "field relationship". Also, I've, read many technical papers on dating techniques (such as Ar/Ar, TL, ESR, etc.), and have a fair understanding of the physics involved in these techniques. Try it (reading some primary literature) rather than trusting Internet reliability. > I suppose a new team of anthropologists could return to the original site > or thereabouts and hunt for new Oreopithecus fossil finds and get a better > date. They have. See above, especially on new discoveries in the 1990s, published in 2003. > If memory serves, when Senut and Pickford returned to their site in Kenya > they were lucky to find more Orrorin fossils. So maybe a return to the > site of Oreopithecus may yield new Oreopithecus fossils and a more > reliable and accurate date. Repeating the same wish (for something that's already happened fairly recently). > Hopefully some day in the future, dating of fossils can be made uniform > procedure for one and all primate fossils so that one group of scientists [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > method on Orrorin as others did on Oreopithecus. And I was looking to see > whether Ar/Ar has a bias in favor of young ages rather than old ages. The bulk of the Orrorin specimens were discovered in the Kapsomin Member of the Lukeino Formation. The Rormuch Sill, which lies stratigraphically directly above the The Kapsomin Member was dated by K/Ar to 5.72 and 5.80 Ma. Lapilli tuff in the upper part of the Lukeino Formation was dated with Ar/Ar to 5.72 Ma. There are dates from the upper part of the Lukeino Formation on anorthoclase using both KK/Ar and Ar/Ar. The K/Ar dating was 5.66 Ma while the Ar/Ar dating was 5.73 Ma. There are both K/Ar and Ar/Ar dates from sediments lying stratigraphically below the Orrorin fossils. Dating the same type of material (anorthoclase) the K/Ar dating was 6.17 Ma while Ar/Ar dating was 6.37 Ma. In addition, specimens of Orrorin were discovered both above and below the magnetic polarity boundary, which has an independent date of 5.8-5.9 Ma. All this is found in the text and Figs. 2 and 4 in the following reference. It's how Orrorin got its 6 million year old age estimate. Y. Sawada et al. (2002). The age of Orrorin tugenensis, an early hominid from the Tugen Hills, Kenya. C.R. Paleovol 1:293-303. Basically, the same K/Ar and Ar/Ar techniques were used to date both Orrorin and Oreopithecus. The K/Ar and Ar/Ar dates for Orrorin are pretty much in agreement. There's no indication that Ar/Ar has a bias in favor of younger ages. In short, there's no evidence for a 10 million year old Oreopithecus. I can't describe your criticism made in this thread any other way than it's baseless speculation that the dating _has to be_ wrong, because you want it to be wrong for your theory. All that other stuff about lost "field relationship" and "unreliable" is wishful thinking. Dar > Archimedes Plutonium > www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots > of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > Oreopithecus fossils themselves have never been dated directly. So it > doesn't matter if they're boxed up and stored away. It is faunal > associations and discovery strata itself which is dated. As long as > these associations and stratigraphic context of discovery are > documented and known, the dating can be, and has been done more > recently by using modern techniques. (snip) > The bulk of the Orrorin specimens were discovered in the Kapsomin > Member of the Lukeino Formation. The Rormuch Sill, which lies [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dar Thanks, Dar, could you please talk about the dating of Sahelanthropus tchadensis with respect to the details of dating of Orrorin and Oreopithecus given above. I need a sense of "uniformity of technique". Question: in the dating of Orrorin, presuming that of Oreopithecus, that the fossils of Orrorin were never actually dated but the fauna, just as in Oreopithecus? Question: in the dating of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Oreopithecus and Orrorin, can one feel confident that the dating of all three were done with the highest regard to a standard of uniformity? Question: Dar, can you provide me with a geographical kilometer distance of the site where Oreopithecus was found to the site where Tchadensis was found and the distance of where Tchadensis was found to the site of where Orrorin was found? Question: Dar, do you know if there was some land bridge that Oreopithecus could have walked or run to the site of Tchadensis some 7 million years ago? I am not quite sure how the Ice Ages played a role for Oreopithecus. I am not sure of the claim of isolated for Oreopithecus. I tend to think that Italy and North Africa were somewhat a "highway" between one another about 7 million years ago. Thanks Dar, you have been extremely helpful. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > There are dates > > from the upper part of the Lukeino Formation on anorthoclase using both [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Y. Sawada et al. (2002). The age of Orrorin tugenensis, an early > > hominid from the Tugen Hills, Kenya. C.R. Paleovol 1:293-303. > > In short, there's no evidence for a 10 million year old Oreopithecus. > Thanks, Dar, could you please talk about the dating of > Sahelanthropus tchadensis with respect to the details of dating of Orrorin > and Oreopithecus given above. I need a sense of "uniformity of technique". What part of it are you having trouble comprehending? I thought Dar did a good job of explaining dating techniques. Do you understand stratigraphy dating? Magnetic polarity boundaries? Surely you are not suggesting that Dar should educate you in the principles of geology, are you? <snip> > Question: Dar, do you know if there was some land bridge that Oreopithecus > could have walked or run to the site of Tchadensis some 7 million years > ago? I am not quite sure how the Ice Ages played a role for Oreopithecus. > I am not sure of the claim of isolated for Oreopithecus. I tend to think > that Italy and North Africa were somewhat a "highway" between one another > about 7 million years ago. I don't know why you keep referring to Oreopithecus. There is nothing about the evidence of Oreopithecus that supports your scenario of rock-throwing as a hunting/ defensive strategy. The bird-like foot and the teeth refute hunting and the fact that Oreopithecus resided on a predator free island refutes any supposition that rock- throwing was a defensive strategy. My communal territorialism scenario, in contrast, fails to be refuted by this evidence in that fossil evidence of that island habitat indicates the existence of food competitor species and adaptations in many of its species to the scarcity of dry season conditions. Also, your supposition that Oreo is ancestral to hominids is more parsimoniously explained by concurrent evolution. ******* Also, I found what follows at this link: http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionChatCenter/seriousscience. msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=182&LastModified= 4675502879401492860 Oreopithecus lived between about 9 and 7 mya on an island roughly where Italy is today. There are no carnivores known among the fossils found and many of the critters appear strange in various ways (lots of time to evolve into weird forms when you are isolated for two million years). Oreopithecus seems to have developed some features that could be argued to resemble the features that bipedal primates later developed like the curvature of the spine. However, they also had curved fingers and a shoulder more adapted to swinging from branch to branch (brachiation). In overall form and size, these critters appear to have been like modern gibbons and siamangs that are upright or vertical but hang from branches and swing from arm to arm. Their teeth appear to have been designed to eat leaves. They are not believed to have had any relationship with the Dryopithecines which evolved into modern Great Apes including humans. It is most likely that they, and all the other wierd beasts of this island became extinct when the land bridge joined the island to the mainland. Not unlike what happened to most of the marsupials in South America when the placentals mammals from North America were able to cross south. And: Oreopithecus survived for about 2 million years. Ironically, the ape's shuffling gait may have proved its undoing--it would have been easy prey for predators that came to the island during an ice age, when sea levels fell and land bridges formed. And: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511 /is_n2_v19/ai_20159521 Where our own foot bones are rigid, well suited for fast walking, those of Oreopithecus still had some of the flexibility of a climbing ape's feet. The ape would have shuffled slowly along, but this wasn't much of a problem, because no predators lived on the island. In the absence of predators, even a slow biped had an edge on other primates. Walking on two legs bums fewer calories than climbing, so Oreopithecus probably lived on less food than other island animals. Many animals on the island showed adaptations to a harsh environment. Some antelope-like animals, for example, constantly regrew teeth, enabling them to eat even coarse food. Oreopithecus survived for about 2 million years. Ironically, the ape's shuffling gait may have proved its undoing -- it would have been easy prey for predators that came to the island during an ice age, when sea levels fell and land bridges formed. Jim > > Oreopithecus fossils themselves have never been dated directly. So it > > doesn't matter if they're boxed up and stored away. It is faunal [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Sahelanthropus tchadensis with respect to the details of dating of Orrorin > and Oreopithecus given above. I need a sense of "uniformity of technique". The primary reference for Sahelanthropus tchadensis stratigraphic context and dating is: P. Vignaud et al. (2002). Geology and palaeontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla hominid locality, Chad. Nature 418: 152-155. Sahelanthropus fossils were discovered at site TM 266 in the context of a 2-meter-thick perilacustrine facies (mostly sandstone sediments above an aeolian facies and below a lacustrine facies), which was informally named the anthracotherid unit (AU). At present, so far as I know, no radiometric dating has been obtained on these deposits, and dating relies almost exclusively on the fauna found with Sahelanthropus in the anthracotherid unit (AU). The AU receives its name from the abundance of anthracotherid fossils, but the fauna includes both an aquatic component (crocodiles, amphibians, and fish, etc.) as well as gallery forest and savannah components (primates, rodents, elephants, equids, suids, and bovids, etc.). The dating of Sahelanthropus was estimated by comparing first appearance date (FAD) and last appearance date {LAD) of the associated faunal species, which are also found in other localities of North and East Africa (and are dated by K/Ar, Ar/Ar, and magnetostratigraphy). A quote from the primary source: "This evidence suggests that TM 266 is older than the Lukieno Formation (references 26,27), and may be equivalent in age with the base of the fossiliferous levels of the Nawata Formation at Lothagam (ref. 23). It is hoped that continuing studies on the fauna will clarify the precise chronological position of TM 266, but present evidence suggests that the faunal remains, including the hominid remains, were deposited between 6 and 7 million years ago" (Vignaud et al. 2002:155). Basically, this Sahelanthropus faunal association dating is done by the same procedure as that done for the dating of Oreopithecus faunal association, except that the TM 266 fauna was compared with known dating for African fossil faunal units, while Oreopithecus was compared with known European (MN) faunal units. The Lukieno Formation (mentioned in the above quote is, of course, the discovery context of Orrorin) is about 6 million years old. The fauna from TM 266 (Sahelanthropus) appears more primitive than the Lukieno fauna, so is thought older. The Nawata Formation fauna is estimated to fall between about 5.2 and 7.4 Ma. The above quote suggests Sahelanthropus "may be equivalent to the base of the Nawata Formation...", which would be 7.4 Ma. Dating of Sahelanthropus is not as precise as dating for Orrorin, but Sahelanthropus does appear older (which is why all the media says Sahelanthropus is about 7 million years old, but a more critical guess would maybe be 6.5-7.0 Ma). > Question: in the dating of Orrorin, presuming that of Oreopithecus, that > the fossils of Orrorin were never actually dated but the fauna, just as in > Oreopithecus? That is basically true. > Question: in the dating of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Oreopithecus and > Orrorin, can one feel confident that the dating of all three were done > with the highest regard to a standard of uniformity? I feel confident that all three (Oreopithecus, Sahelanthropus, and Orrorin) are dated to the highest standard possible, given what there is (or is not) available to work with. There's always room for improvement, or fauna FAD and LAD can change with new discoveries (we can only know first and last dates of appearance in the fossil record for what has presently been discovered), but these dates aren't very likely ever to move forward or back in time more than 1 million years. > Question: Dar, can you provide me with a geographical kilometer distance > of the site where Oreopithecus was found to the site where Tchadensis was > found and the distance of where Tchadensis was found to the site of where > Orrorin was found? These are only rough estimates I just made on a flat map, but Sahelanthropus locality in Chad is approx. 1700 km due south of Oreopithecus locality in Italy. Orrorin locality in Kenya is approx. another 1700 km southeast of Sahelanthropus in Chad. Depending on map distortion, these estimates could be off by about 100 km or so. > Question: Dar, do you know if there was some land bridge that Oreopithecus > could have walked or run to the site of Tchadensis some 7 million years > ago? I am not quite sure how the Ice Ages played a role for Oreopithecus. > I am not sure of the claim of isolated for Oreopithecus. I tend to think > that Italy and North Africa were somewhat a "highway" between one another > about 7 million years ago. I don't think as early a 7 Ma, but the Mediterranean Sea dried up completely during what some people called the "Mediterranean salinity crisis", when this was first discovered about 20 years ago. I haven't really looked into this for a number of years, but last time I studied this was about 1995 and there was some discussion that the Mediterranean dried up and refilled, and there was talk that this happened more than once. The dates given then were between about 6 and 5 million years ago, but there may be newer information, so don't rely on my bad memory from 10 years ago. Before 6 million years ago, a landbridge probably did not exist from Europe to North Africa. But there probably is more recent information and dating for the Mediterranean salinity crisis. I just haven't been keeping current on this. The event probably has a different name now, and I probably don't have the details quite right either. This needs more study than I've done at present. > Thanks Dar, you have been extremely helpful. You're welcome. I try. Dar > Archimedes Plutonium > www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots > of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > thought older. The Nawata Formation fauna is estimated to fall between > about 5.2 and 7.4 Ma. The above quote suggests Sahelanthropus "may be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sahelanthropus is about 7 million years old, but a more critical guess > would maybe be 6.5-7.0 Ma). The average between 9 to 7 million years is 8 million years for Oreopithecus. The distance from the site of Oreopithecus in Italy to the site of Sahelanthropus in Chad is approx 1700 km. The average of 5.2 and 7.4 is 6.3 million years for Sahelanthropus. The distance from the site of Sahelanthropus in Chad to the site of Orrorin in Kenya is approx 1700 km. The average of 5.8 and 5.9 is 5.9 million years for Orrorin. Thanks due to Dar Habel I am able to assemble some precise and accurate pattern of date-time and place for the Stonethrowing theory. Now according to Stonethrowing theory, the first behaviour of Stonethrowing would come into existence *most probably* at the fringes or extreme boundary of the habitat of the primates that would become human. So the extreme boundary of ancient primates that would become Homo sapiens was Italy some 7-9 million years ago. And the direction of migration of this Stonethrowing primate would have been southward where the Throwing would have extreme advantages over other primates and also due to increasing coldness, Ice Ages, would drive the Stonethrowers southward. Stonethrowing theory would say that Oreopithecus was the direct line descent of Humans and the next descendent was Sahelanthropus and the next one was Orrorin. Oreopithecus was the first Stonethrower and that transformed Oreopithecus from quadraped to biped. Stonethrowing came first and later created bipedalism. Sahelanthropus was a different species than Oreopithecus but originated from Oreopithecus. Orrorin was a different species than Sahelanthropus but originated from Sahelanthropus. The time it took for Oreopithecus to migrate to Chad was 8 subtract 6.3 is about 1.7 million years time elapsed. But the time for Sahelanthropus to migrate to Kenya becoming Orrorin took only 6.3 subtract 5.9 is about 0.4 million years or 400,000 years. Which indicates to us that the improvement of bipedalism between Sahelanthropus to Orrorin had increased in proficiency by a factor of 4 times considering it took Oreopithecus 1.7 million years to cover 1700 km distance and it took Sahelanthropus only 0.4 million years to cover an equal 1700 km distance. So one can almost envision Oreopithecus walking to Chad whereas Sahelanthropus was running to Kenya. The pattern above suggests that by the time of Orrorin in Kenya that our Human ancestors would not have made anymore major migrations southward because Kenya is on the Equator and Kenya would have been the Optimal playground for a Stonethrowing Primate to evolve into the most deadly stonethrower. Warm climate with abundant plains and grass animals would have been the ideal evolution cooking pot to produce the most deadly stonethrowing primate of 5 to 6 million years ago. That would not change until Stonethrowing technology of sharpened and special rocks preferred those Stonethrowers to geography where rock and stone mines concentrated those favored stones and rocks. So Evolution theory would preferr Oreopithecus as the first human ancestor because it was on the fringes of the habitat where accelerated evolution changes take place and thus Stonethrowing was created in Oreopithecus in Italy some 8 million years ago. But then the exploitation of this new behaviour of Stonethrowing would drive Oreopithecus to migrate southward to warm climate and plenty of open range and grasslands where the Stonethrowing would benefit those primates above all other primates. Kenya would become the place to Optimize Stonethrowing due to warm climate and open grassland to kill game animals. Question Dar Habel, the oldest hominid fossils seem to be found in Kenya and Chad, but none seem to ever be found in Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Middle East, Turkey, Greece. In other words, the direct route from Italy to Chad seems to be the route of evolution and not the circuituous route around the Mediter. Sea. Has there ever been found any biped hominid found in the circuituous route around the Med. Sea from Italy to Chad? Interesting that the Med Sea Salinity Crisis. I never heard of such a thing. I would tend to be skeptical of that claim that it dried up completely because I understand the Med. Sea is an Ancient Ocean that is getting distorted in Plate Tectonics. So the Med. Sea is hugely deep. Because it is hugely deep I doubt it ever dried up completely. I could believe that it dried a little bit so that a land bridge may have emerged that allowed Oreopithecus to walk from Italy to Northern Africa. The fact we seem to have an absence of hominid fossils around the circuituous route from Italy to Egypt suggests that Oreopithecus walked a land bridge from Italy to Tunisia. Dar, has there been any old fossils of hominids found in Tunisia regions? And I wonder if we can quantify other fossils as per this 1700 km distance as different species. So that if a primate is found one place separated by 1700 km to another primate then they were two different species. Neanderthal thus poses a last challenge to the Stonethrowing theory. Neanderthal was a different species and was a Stonethrower that was extincted by the African Stonethrowers that returned up north. So was Neanderthal a byproduct of Orrorin that headed up north too early to get the full Optimization of Stonethrowing and for which would lead to Neanderthal's extinction? So can we say that Neanderthal was a species that just was not Fully Optimized in Stonethrowing that the Equatorial Orrorin would eventually evolve into and that the Neanderthal species was a species that migrated back north prematurely optimized in stonethrowing. So I would need a species that was evolved from Orrorin that stayed in Equatorial Africa that optimized stonethrowing and then later migrated back north extincting every primate that competed in its habitat. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies [snip] > Question Dar Habel, the oldest hominid fossils seem to be found in Kenya > and Chad, but none seem to ever be found in Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Middle > East, Turkey, Greece. In other words, the direct route from Italy to Chad > seems to be the route of evolution and not the circuituous route around > the Mediter. Sea. Has there ever been found any biped hominid found in the > circuituous route around the Med. Sea from Italy to Chad? No. But on the other hand, Oreopithecus is not a bipedal hominid either. Oreopithecus could have locomoted bipedal for short distances foraging on the ground, but the feet are less suited to walking and running than those of hominids. Oreopithecus is neither a hominid or a hominid ancestor. Oreopithecus is a specialized hominoid ape and probably went extinct at the beginning of the Mediterranean salinity crisis. > Interesting that the Med Sea Salinity Crisis. I never heard of such a > thing. I would tend to be skeptical of that claim that it dried up > completely because I understand the Med. Sea is an Ancient Ocean that is > getting distorted in Plate Tectonics. So the Med. Sea is hugely deep. > Because it is hugely deep I doubt it ever dried up completely. Only hugely deep in some places. The African Plate collided with the European Plate, closing off the Suez and Gibraltar ends of the old Tethys Sea for a while, and the water evaporated away until Gibraltar later opened up again (much simplified). I've done a little google search, and while there is still a lot of debate about what caused the crisis and its extent, there's not much doubt that it happened sometime between about 5.8 and 5.3 million years ago. That still could mean there were places here and there where remnant salty sea would remain. Anyone can google up a lot of info on this, but one fairly good overview (with a pdf available) is at (I see it's now being called the "Messinian salinity crisis": http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/tectonics/messinian/history.htm > I could > believe that it dried a little bit so that a land bridge may have emerged > that allowed Oreopithecus to walk from Italy to Northern Africa. Oreopithecus probably became extinct when the Italian island was reconnected to the mainland and predators arrived. Again, during the Messinian salinity crisis. > The fact we seem to have an absence of hominid fossils around the > circuituous route from Italy to Egypt suggests that Oreopithecus walked a > land bridge from Italy to Tunisia. > > Dar, has there been any old fossils of hominids found in Tunisia regions? No. Dar {snipped all Oreo-stonethrowing theory without comment. I don't mind helping with "facts", but refuse to be drawn into a discussion of Oreopithecus --> Sahelanthropus --> Orrorin evolution as stonethrowers. I'll make no apology for my refusal to discuss this.) [snip] > [snip] > > Question Dar Habel, the oldest hominid fossils seem to be found in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No. But on the other hand, Oreopithecus is not a bipedal hominid > either. Oreopithecus could have locomoted bipedal for short distances I suspect Oreopithecus has been given a bad rapp, rather than a full science evaluation. Our ears and minds tend to perk up when we are told that a fossil is our ancestor and when we are told a fossil is not our ancestor we tend to bias and prejudice and even mock a fossil. So instead of saying "wow to Oreopithecus", the people in anthropology have mocked the find. According to the Stonethrowing theory, it is Throwing that created bipedalism and that forces us to become Very Interested in any fossil find showing evidence of bipedalism. Not only would Oreopithecus be the oldest biped primate but the oldest Stonethrower. And the Throwing by Oreopithecus transformed Oreopithecus into becoming biped. Of course the bipedalism of Oreopithecus would be awkward compared to more modern bipeds but first starts are always less than fluid bipedalism. And Oreopithecus would then by the direct line descendent to humans going through Sahelanthropus and Orrorin etc etc. Oreopithecus because of Stonethrowing creating bipedalism would be our oldest ancestor. > foraging on the ground, but the feet are less suited to walking and > running than those of hominids. Oreopithecus is neither a hominid or a The very first Stonethrowers would slowly create bipedalism and it would be awkward compared to bipedalism of Orrorin. > hominid ancestor. Oreopithecus is a specialized hominoid ape and > probably went extinct at the beginning of the Mediterranean salinity > crisis. Disagree. Oreopithecus would wander down into Northern Africa using land bridges caused by the Med. Salinity Crisis. And Oreopithecus would become a new species of Sahelanthropus which would become a newer species of Orrorin some 400,000 years later. As to the extinction of Oreopithecus, perhaps Sahelanthropus caused the extinction. And as to the extinction of Sahelanthropus, probably Orrorin caused that. As Nature creates the most proficient Stonethrower, the tendency is for this most proficient stonethrower to extinct all lesser efficient Stonethrowers. Neanderthal was a pocket isolated future group of stonethrowers perhaps descendent of Orrorin who went north rather than remained in Kenya to evolve into the most deadly of Stonethrowers and would become extinct when these southern stonethrowers migrated northward millions of years later. > > Interesting that the Med Sea Salinity Crisis. I never heard of such a > > thing. I would tend to be skeptical of that claim that it dried up [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/tectonics/messinian/history.htm Thanks for the picture Dar. But I could not find a picture showing where land bridges would have connected Italy and the site of Oreopithecus to northern Africa? I am guessing there was a bridge to Tunis, Tunisia but that is just a guess. I need to know where Oreopithecus would have migrated into Northern Africa. This is important because for the first time a major theory of Anthropology will tell us where to dig and look for fossils. Whereever that land bridge was located where Oreopithecus would have migrated, say for instance Tunisia, then if we find a fossilized Oreopithecus in Tunisia is evidence that is proving evidence of the Stonethrowing theory. Likewise, on the other migration route from Italy to Greece to Turkey to Israel to Egypt, the circuituous route of Italy to Northern Africa. That whenever a layer of sedimentary rock layers dating from 5 to 9 million years of age will never have any hominid fossils resembling Oreopithecus, Sahelanthropus or Orrorin. Only the Italy to Tunisia to Chad to Kenya corridor will have fossils resembling Oreopithecus, resembling Sahelanthropus and resembling Orrorin. So the day we find a Oreopithecus fossil in Tunisia is the day we come closer to validating the Stonethrowing theory and that the only difference between humanity and that of monkeys and apes is a new behaviour onto Earth-- the behaviour to Throw rocks and stones. Humanity is different from apes and monkeys in terms of anthropology because humanity throws rocks and stones for a living. > > I could > > believe that it dried a little bit so that a land bridge may have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reconnected to the mainland and predators arrived. Again, during the > Messinian salinity crisis. I disagree. Neanderthal became extinct not because of predators, but because of a better Stonethrower who arrived in the habitat of Neanderthal. So I think that what extincted Oreopithecus was Sahelanthropus. And perhaps Sahelanthropus may have given rise to Neanderthal whereas the southern Sahelanthropus gave rise to Orrorin. > > The fact we seem to have an absence of hominid fossils around the > > circuituous route from Italy to Egypt suggests that Oreopithecus [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > [snip] Question: Is Tunisia politically unstable to conduct a Anthropology research dig to find whether Oreopithecus fossils are there? 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 news some months back was an item that a dinosaur fossil had soft tissue when broken open. I forgotten the age of this dinosaur whether 70 million or 100 million years old. That gives hope that someday a Oreopithecus and Sahelanthropus and Orrorin teeth or major bone when sawed open will have retained soft tissue and DNA. It has already been reported of the mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal that we know Neanderthal was a different species from Homo sapiens. So I hope in the distant future that we have a large collection of Oreopithecus, Sahelanthropus and Orrorin fossils and DNA testing that proves they were different species and had descended from each other to a direct line to Homo sapiens. But as I keep saying and harping that the direct line to Homo sapiens is one that is the line of Stonethrowing. The most proficient and efficient Stonethrower is our direct ancestor. The first Stonethrowers were created at the northern most boundary or fringe of habitat of primates some 7 to 9 million years ago and is called Oreopithecus or preOreopithecus. And this first primate to Throw stones and rocks as a routine behaviour would create bipedalism in those individuals. Once this planet Earth had a Stonethrowing biped it would take only about 2 million years for this Stonethrowing biped to have proliferated in population and migrated to the spot on Earth where Stonethrowing and its accompanying advantage of bipedalism would be Optimally Enhanced in Equatorial Africa of the Kenya regions. So the fringes of primate habitat of the far north would create Stonethrowing behaviour which would then create bipedalism but the region of primate habitat where these 2 new creations would get enhanced and optimized is the heart of the primate habitat of Equatorial Africa such as Kenya with warm climate and open grassland plains where Stonethrowing coupled with bipedalism would take on its Optimal capacity. Then this optimized stonethrower biped would migrate out of Kenya and extinct any and every other developing stonethrowing biped. Earth had never seen a species with so much deadly potential of Throwing with Running, and the optimized Thrower would extinct the inferior throwers. And would make this Thrower feared by almost all predators from its 5 million years of Stonethrowing hunting. Dogs and other predators have imprinted into their instincts via 5 million years of association with primate Throwers that when they bend down to pick up rocks or carry rocks or throw rocks that all those predators take to running away. So I am hopeful that Oreopithecus and Sahelanthropus and Orrorin fossils will contain useable DNA. And that we in the future will find the A,C,T,G coding that evinces the behaviour of Throwing. We should be able to find that coding today between chimpanzee and human and orangutan. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Somebody wrote: > Now I never thought the hole in the skull to accomodate the spinal cord > was very important to bipedalism. And I am not sure whether it is and to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the question facing Stonethrowing theory is whether that hole is > important for being able to throw rocks and stones. The problem with the foramen magnum is that either it or the neck must allow the head to be carried in a suitable position for full-time bipedalism. While there's no doubt that accuracy in throwing anything conveyed a substantial advantage (I recall a theory that the throwing motion is necessary for making stone tools) I think that ability came after bipedalism, a quadriped's shoulder would need to increase its range of rotation to allow an overhand throwing motion, alternately adapting a bipedal posture would effect that change without actually increasing the range of rotation.A possibility is that the skills improved concurrently with bipedalism, with the semi-quadripedal creature only able to throw underhanded, which can work with rocks, increased vertical posture allowed a more efficient overhand throwing motion suitable for objects other than rocks, also allowing a club to strike from above. Anything I'm missing? Snippage. . . . . > The problem with the foramen magnum is that either it or the neck must > allow the head to be carried in a suitable position for full-time [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Anything I'm missing? Yep. Maybe one little thing. . . . . Have you ever been near an angry, caged chimp? Certainly not what you would call an obligate biped but distressingly accurate with thrown objects. Usually the recipient almost wishes that it was a stone that was thrown! At least the one time I saw a chimp pitch a "high, hard one", it was overhand! Regards bk > Snippage. . . . . > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Regards > bk I have heard and seen primates' fertilizer distribution methods. I base my thoughts on an article that linked throwing abilities with toolmaking capabilities. The article, which I believe I linked to from this or a similar interest newsgroup, claimed that the motion necessary to accurately use rocks as a tool for hunting or defense, is absent in current apes. Accuracy is only one aspect, the rock must be large enough, or thrown hard enough to injure or discourage. I'm not aware of any extant apes using rocks to defend their home range or killing prey, and I'm certain that the practice would have been exploited if it were possible. Are you certain that the chimp din't throw sidearm? Snippage. . . . >>>Anything I'm missing? >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Are you certain that the chimp din't throw sidearm? Actually, I was more interested in ducking than the precise delivery technique but I seem to remember a pretty much straight over the top motion. Think about it for just a moment too. Chimps and certainly the lesser apes spend more than a little bit of time up in the trees. Where would they be if they had any problem lifting their arms over their heads with some considerable strength and coordination? I would be VERY interested in seeing a discussion of how an ape that can braciate through a forest canopy can not pick up a sizable stone and fling it with considerable force. Accuracy of course is another issue, but there are plenty of decorated zookeepers (and sometimes patrons) that can testify to the accuracy of at least one species! ;-) As for actually using thrown stones. . . . http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/anthro2003/origins/hominid_jou rney/optional3.html and http://williamcalvin.com/bk5/bk5ch8.htm Again, a little bit of accuracy (which some can testify to), combined with the upper body strength that chimps are known for, combined with a proper range of motion at the shoulder, combined with the observation the chimps do throw things, other than "fertilizer", and . . . . . . At least makes the POSSIBLITY of chimps throwning stones as weapons feasible. Maybe a tad short of hard evidence or maybe the chimps have just not made the logical connection betwen throwing and food collection. Or maybe, just as most modern hunters forgo using hand thrown stones to knock over their prey, they have a preferred method that meets their needs and they have just not had the incentive to try a different approach! 8-) Regards bk >> Have you ever been near an angry, caged chimp? No, but I've interacted with a few on the UseNet, in fact I am corresponding with one now, after many long years of not responding to him. > I have heard and seen primates' fertilizer distribution methods. > I base my thoughts on an article that linked throwing abilities [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hunting or defense, is absent in current apes. Accuracy is only > one aspect, the rock must be large enough, frequent enough > or thrown hard enough > to injure or discourage. The point is that the various stages of bipedality have more or less speculative reasons for existing, although certainly tool manufactoring and hunting played importance in the later stages. It is not altogether clear what drove earlier versions of apes to take more frequent upright posture. Consider orthograde motion through trees for instance. Consider changes in child rearing habits. Consider changes in food gathering. We can creat a very long list of activities which might favor increased bipedality in its earliest form. The spanish ape whose skull I graphically reconstructed for PaleoAnth to me had the appearance of a predator, the spread of the eyes. I have wondered whether hunting ebbed and flowed in ape kind over evoloution. One of the aspects I keep coming back to, particularly with regard to gorilla, is how derivative gorilla relative to chimpanzee and this ape. As a matter of fact the spanish ape, by comparison was as close to a paranthrops (lacking the developed canines) as it was to chimpanzee. This similarity is somewhat perplexing even understanding that paraanthrops is 2 mya, that such a ape would have such similarities to human so early in ape evolution and at such a distance from africa. Comparing the spanish Ape, chimpanzee and paraanthrops would have placed gorilla as a outgroup. Therefore one has to consider a potential argument that the stem population of the C/H/G group actually might have been the australopith, evolving without tool use and towards more upright stance for millions of years, and that chimpanzees and gorillas are derivative specialist. Frankly I have some suspiciouns about any of these bipedal based ape theories, there is enough openings in the data for which I have to say we need alot more data at present on the exact nature of the C/H LCA, C/H/G LCA, Australopith/Homo LCA that I would feel some sense of confidence that I had a morphology for which to drawn a progressive (derivitization pattern) line through. Everyone here has their favorite theory, but if you step to far in the direction of trying to choose or say you know a theory, many here will snap at the inadequacies. In science it is better to ask a question than to give an answer. I have an opinion that during that prior to the pliocene 'light' habitual bipedality may have simply been a common variant, like freckles or male pattern baldness, with its pluses and minuses. And BTW, humans are not as suited for throwing overhand as you think, consider the early mid onset injuries associated with sports where players throw overhand. There are alot of twisting of tendons and nerves to throw overhand, its not like walking, nerves can get inflamed, tendons torn, etc. Compare someone in peak physical condition can run a 30 mile marathon, 1000s of steps. A major league pithcher pitched for 7 innings, maybe 20 times per inning let us be liberal and say 200 pitches, and has to be rested for a week. We may be better throwing overhand relative to other positions relative to the same argument for chimpanzees. Probably the closest argument you can make is the swimming of the English channel, but even their you are using leg motions and upper torso rotation. > I'm not aware of any extant apes using > rocks to defend their home range or killing prey, and I'm > certain that the practice would have been exploited if it were > possible. A chimpanzee with throw anything in arms reach in defense of itself although its preference appears to be broken branches. > Are you certain that the chimp din't throw sidearm? I am no expert on these matters however I think you have created a bit of a strawman argument, different cultures of chimps use wood or rocks in various processes. However, prior to the introduction of the firearm to africa, humans as chimp hunters appears to have been limited by the fact that chimps put up a formidable defense including swinging and throwing objects at intruders. One of the theories regarding HIV I (three introduced strains) in the last 100 years is that humans could not really specialize in the eating of 'bush' apes as a staple in their diet, chimpanzees so hard to find and so dangerous when cornered, with the introduction of firearms a skilled hunter could take a chimpanzee from a tree at up to 1/4 mile distance and watch it troop mates scatter. The estimates are that within a <<50 year period of time 3 strains of HIV were introduced into the africa population which then spread to points out of africa as the disease bearing population in africa grew. SignaturePhilip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm >>>Have you ever been near an angry, caged chimp? > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > limited by the fact that chimps put up a formidable defense including > swinging and throwing objects at intruders. I see that there IS evidence to support chimps using rocks to discourage predators, but they DON'T appear to hunt using thrown projectiles, or at least not deliberately, but as a local practice, it probably only has to transpire that the shower of rocks badly injures a predator enough to allow them to finish it off. It sounds as if local groups can capitalize on experience. >>>>Have you ever been near an angry, caged chimp? >> [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > allow them to finish it off. It sounds as if local groups can capitalize > on experience. Exactly. Tech use is culture. Some groups use some tech others use different tech and one guy said the group he was studing used no tech. He was most unhappy but as he said the living was easy so nobody bothered. Snippage. . . . . > I see that there IS evidence to support chimps using rocks to discourage > predators, but they DON'T appear to hunt using thrown projectiles, or at > least not deliberately, but as a local practice, it probably only has to > transpire that the shower of rocks badly injures a predator enough to > allow them to finish it off. It sounds as if local groups can capitalize > on experience. I think that the issue is more along the lines of chimps can, and do, throw just about anything that is available to them if the circumstances allow. In their "normal" habitats I would offer that downed tree limbs might just be more plentiful than good exposed throwing rocks. Those that stray from the tree line (and there are some), probably have more of a "cultural" propensity to throw rocks. Hmmmm. . . . stray from the tree line. . . throw rocks. . . . Wonder if there might be a connection. . . . Regards bk In sci.anthropology.paleo, mikelist created a message ID news:425ae774$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net: > I see that there IS evidence to support chimps using rocks to discourage > predators, but they DON'T appear to hunt using thrown projectiles, or at > least not deliberately, but as a local practice, it probably only has to > transpire that the shower of rocks badly injures a predator enough to > allow them to finish it off. It sounds as if local groups can capitalize > on experience. I have an observation that I think is applicable at least from the microbial world. Threats, for example hostile chemicals in the environment result in an adaptive response for microbes this results in enzymes that can detoxify a chemical protecting that microbe, this is the path toward chemical resistence. What is broadly not know is that if one increased the level of the toxin to overcome the chemical resistence, in only increases that resistence to the point that the microbe becomes a consumer and metabolizer of the toxin, eventually the toxin becomes a nutrient to the microbe. This was not only seen in microbes but in mullosc that had been exposed to PCB's, the most adaptive ended up consuming PCBs as part of their metabolism, and are seen as remedial. The division between a detoxifyer and consumer is not a fine line, in general the immediate consequence of rendering somthing non-toxic by cytochrome P450 makes it degradable in an energy producing pathway within the cell. In the position of crossover organisms like apes, which could be either predators (for example Eskimo as an example of nearly predatory ape, to complete herbivores for example gorillas), the exposure of such animals to predators in which the defensive response (i.e. rock and stick throwing) can evolve fairly rapidly into predation. What is the difference between throwing rocks and stick throwing in which a leapord is killed, and the next step encountering a young irate bovine and killing it, then in the frenzie of the kill realizing that its meats are edible. The issue then of taking a defensive position against the leapord is not the ferocity of the killing method, predation is the choice post-kill whether or not to eat what was killed. I have to say you are wrong, we know very little about the roving habits of chimpanzees, and with range reduction and competition their habits may be limited by human incursion, it is certainly plausible that with opportunity they have taken kills of ground feeding predators, foods they later eat. However the logic of the point is that they probably would not have prepared in advance for the operation, but would have grabbed sticks or stones at the scene. Since in the forest they generally live stones are more rare, sticks would be used. The difference you are looking for is not in what they would do, but how they would prepare. In this since if they gathered stone materials and most useful branches for a hunt or even defense, then you have the ingrediants of what we could argue is prehuman. Chimps do gather stones, for crushing nuts, so that they do prepare for this. The issue is chimps is that they appear to be able to line a few points in serial process A->B->C or B->C->D or D->E->F-> or even A + B->AB->C, but they are unable to make long assemblages of serial process. Even if they learn they still do not compile multiple serial lines into complex assemblages. Therefore the statement that they might eat a predator that they killed and seldomly or never eat a prey that they killed using the same defensive scheme, has more to do with their underdeveloped industry relative to human than it does have to do with stone or wood. If for example you took a band of hungry chimps tied a small bovid to a tree and let them kill that bovid once then, put them over a corral of small bovids, and provided them with a stock pile of rocks along the edge of the corral I bet they would manage to kill a few bovids. Whereas humans seem to be able to create the opportunity for such kills, chimpanzees do not. That I think is the difference. Chimpanzees, IMHO, are specialized foragers that can hunt. Any tools they may need for foraging are made from the 'eye-sight' distances to the actual foraging site. Humans are foragers that actively hunt and we are specialist at gathering (food, stone, wood, etc) as part of the foraging hunting activity, the pliestocene shows that tools were made from raw materials far from the consumption site, and this type of sophistication was probably developed at 2.6 mya. Now if you want me to give a specific selection that would be acting at >2.6 mya resulting stone tool cultures of Lokalalei I would be looking at selection toward this type of cognative planning/gathering, not neccesarily how an arm throws a stone. Aside from that, prior to stone use, it is likely that the tools most frequently used by transitionals were fashioned from wood, in which the overhand throwing modality is less of an issue. My prediction is changes in the way post C/H hominid mind works then gives rise to the selection for freeing up hand activity via bipedality and other variantions, but that bipedality was already a variant, and as the reorganization of the mind progressed, so did the freqeuncy of bipedality. I can say this because gathering does not require habitual bipedality, however efficient gathering does. One has to keep in mind that industries are made via facilities, we are familiar with this idea interms of modern industries, but the facilities of the primative societies are built into their structure and environment. In this regard human have many facilities for industry. Some of these facilities are structural/anatomic and others are more cognative/adaptive. Both interact with the environment at many levels. The ability to do something is the result of the augmentation of the set of facilities to do something. A zebrafish, no matter how much training cannot build spear. A chimpanzee probably could, with assistence build a spear, not by itself. Protohumans are innately driven to make tools. If you chopped both arms off, they would probably use their feet to make something. If the mind is desirous to hunt with stones the arm will find a way to throw them. But prior to 2.6 mya we have no indication the protohumans hunted with stones. Therefore their hunting strategies are equally likely to have involved wood, and fashioned pieces of wood and the mechanics of throwing may have been different for an intermediate organism. Since we don't really have any indications of what the industries were prior to 2.6 mya then we have a real problem defining how suitable these protohumans were to creating and using these tools or other objects. Anyone here want to lead the argument, other anthropologist have done it, to their own error. 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/ DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net >>> Have you ever been near an angry, caged chimp? > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > 'light' habitual bipedality may have simply been a common variant, > like freckles or male pattern baldness, with its pluses and minuses. Considering that one population of chimps have knees that lock up when standing I take the view that "light" bipedality may have been developed many times. I thought as much before I knew about the chimps. Lock able knees and some changes to hips pretty much means its easier to walk on two legs. Heck, locking knees seems to be enough to put a chimp on its hind legs most of the time even though it doesn't do a thing to prevent them from walking on all fours. > And BTW, humans are not as suited for throwing overhand as you > think, consider the early mid onset injuries associated with sports [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > A chimpanzee with throw anything in arms reach in defense of itself > although its preference appears to be broken branches. And I for one am still not sure that underhanded or side handed isn't the best way to go. Just because basefall players throw overhanded doesn't prove it is best way for a human to throw things. >> Are you certain that the chimp din't throw sidearm? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > introduced into the africa population which then spread to points out > of africa as the disease bearing population in africa grew. You have a strong point. I think chimps were losing ground before guns arrived but not very fast. Killing one made you a big man because it was bleeping dangerous. > Somebody wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Anything I'm missing? Yep, you're assuming that upright posture came from bipedalism (unless I'm misinterpreting the mish-mash of words above). You don't stop to consider that perhaps the range of motion seen in human (and ape) arms could come from *climbing* and thus ~predate~ bipedalism. You might also like to see: http://www.alexandertechnique.be/English/sit_happens.htm Oh look. That's an *ape*, ~sitting~, with a vertical spine. This is an activity that a large-bodied primate would be engaged in when feeding, resting, socializing, etc --IOW, when they were *not* locomoting. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message