 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / October 2004Is SCIENCE magazine 2 or more years behind; Re: Orrorin
--- quoting Reuters write-up on a SCIENCE article --- Pre-Human Walked Upright 6 Million Years Ago -Study Thu Sep 2, 5:55 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A chimp-sized human ancestor walked upright 6 million years ago, far earlier than anyone had been able to show before, researchers reported on Thursday. Specialized X-rays called CAT scans of the top of a fossil thighbone show clear evidence that the creature walked upright, like pre-humans, and not like apes, the researchers said. Their findings, published in Friday's issue of the journal Science, take the dawn of human gait back another 3 million years from "Lucy," the earliest known pre-human to have walked on two legs. "We have solid evidence of the earliest upright posture and bipedalism securely dated to six million years," said Dr. Robert Eckhardt, a professor in the Laboratory of Comparative Morphology and Mechanics at Pennsylvania State University. This older species, known scientifically as Orrorin tugenensis, lived in what is now the Kenyan Lukeino Formation. The international team of researchers studied bones dug up nearly four years ago. One thighbone includes the intact head of the left thighbone -- the ball that is inserted into the hip socket joint. The bones are about the same size as a modern chimpanzee's. But they look quite different. The researchers ran computed tomography or CAT scans on the bones. These computer-enhanced X-rays create a three-dimensional image. They found the neck connecting the ball to the shaft is thinner on top than it is on the bottom, a sign that the creature walked on two legs. "In present day chimps and gorillas, the thicknesses in the upper and lower parts of that bone are approximately equal," Eckhardt said in a statement. "In modern humans, the bone on top is thinner than on the bottom by a ratio of one to four or more. The ratio in this fossil is one to three." Genetic evidence suggests that chimps and human diverged from a common ancestor 7 million years ago. --- end quoting --- I had seen this information on a PBS TV program some years ago. So I was confused as to why Reuters or SCIENCE magazine bothered to publish it since the story is 2 years old and told better on the TV. Is it because SCIENCE belatedly realized it was one of the finest stories of modern anthropology and am now trying to patch their missing holes. Better late than never? For over a year now I have been researching and looking for the telltale bone anatomy of Orrorin that proves Orrorin was a Stonethrower. That is even more spectacular of a finding than Orrorin as a biped. Because if we prove Orrorin threw rocks and stones then we are on the road to proving that Throwing preceded bipedalism and Throwing created bipedalism. The creature known as Oreopithecus, who is much older than Orrorin at about 8 to 10 million years ago, I claim was also biped and that Throwing created the bipedalism of Oreopithecus. So if the scientists mentioned above are willing to do some great research, then they would assemble all the bones found of Oreopithecus and Orrorin and attempt to prove that both Oreopithecus and Orrorin were Throwers of rocks and stones. The dig site of both Oreopithecus and Orrorin were so sloppily done that they removed the rocks and stones that could have indicated Orrorin and Oreopithecus were Throwers. That is why anatomy and medical scientists are needed to find a telltale bone structure that proves whether a apelike creature Threw rocks and stones and with the help of modern day chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas we can differentiate such Unique bone marker for Throwing. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies If people were stone throwers, the way you are suggesting, they wouldn't need tenis rackets. First of all, their arm muscles wouldn't deteriorate. At least, they would retain their monkey's power (if not enhace this), except that they will be adapted for stone throwing. Which means, we would be able to propel a stone in 1 tenth of a second, with great speed. We wouldn't need machine guns, or spears, or swords. Today, maybe we are better stone throwers than dogs, but still, this is pathetic. And I don't see any reason to believe that this was EVER in better state. -- Mario > If people were stone throwers, the way you are suggesting, they > wouldn't need tenis rackets. First of all, their arm muscles wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stone throwers than dogs, but still, this is pathetic. And I don't see any > reason to believe that this was EVER in better state. -- Mario Your basic IQ-65 AfroDAFNz (spear-chucking jungle bunnies who never advanced) aren't that much different from real humans (white people) when it comes to the limits of physical performance... makemyday@worldnet.att.net: > Mario Petrinovich: > > If people were stone throwers, the way you are suggesting, they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > advanced) aren't that much different from real humans (white people) > when it comes to the limits of physical performance... Can you be more clear? -- Mario >> If people were stone throwers, the way you are >> suggesting, they >> wouldn't need tenis rackets. There is a version of tennis without the racket, its called hand ball. >> First of all, their arm >> muscles wouldn't deteriorate. At least, they would retain >> their monkey's power (if not enhace this) Humans retain their monkey's power. Aka they are monkey's [apes to be specific] therefore they establish another point in the distribution >>, except that >> they will be adapted for stone throwing. Which means, we >> would be able to propel a stone in 1 tenth of a second, >> with great speed. No animal can accelerate that fast. The problems is not the force, if you accelerate to that speed you do damage to your cardiovascular and nervous system in your arm and shoulder. >> We wouldn't need machine guns, or >> spears, or swords. Today, maybe we are better stone >> throwers than dogs, but still, this is pathetic. And I >> don't see any reason to believe that this was EVER in >> better state. -- Mario Don't judge others ability to throw based on yours Mario. Anyway Jois, I suppose Mario copped out on those cliff diving extravoganza. > Your basic IQ-65 AfroDAFNz (spear-chucking jungle bunnies > who never advanced) And, Jois, here's another one for your sig-line collection.  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/ >> makemyday@worldnet.att.net says in >> news:413B0A79.4D26D2FE@worldnet.att.net: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> Anyway Jois, I suppose Mario copped out on those cliff diving >> extravoganza. [snip] Yep, and it is breaking my heart. Mario, look up osteoarthritis - let me help you out a bit: http://www.arthritis.org/conditions/DiseaseCenter/oa.asp Jois > >> If people were stone throwers, the way you are > >> suggesting, they [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Don't judge others ability to throw based on yours Mario. Baseball pitcher Randy Johnson killed a dove which was unfortunate enough to get in the way of his fastball; in 1983 Dave Winfield killed a seagull when he tried to scare it off by throwing near it but accidentally hit it instead. Supposedly baseball pitcher PeeWee Reese honed his skills as a poor youngster hunting squirrels by throwing rocks at them so as not to use expensive ammunition. Old time pitcher Mickey Owen grew up hunting frogs by throwing rocks at them, and once killed a rabbit at a distance of about 40 feet. I used to throw rocks at birds when I was a kid -- not the nicest thing to do, admittedly, but then we were cruel then by the standards I use now -- I could hit a blackbird at a distance of 50 feet. That's a small target, but I was using small rocks and didn't kill it. -- Jim Moore J Moore: > Philip Deitiker: >> > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> force, if you accelerate to that speed you do damage to your >> cardiovascular and nervous system in your arm and shoulder. No other animals are stone thorwers. To show how an animal can adapt to specific things (similar to stone throwing), I'll point you to beaver (its tail making sound like gun shot) and mantis shrimp (and this is in water). Now, we would have similar adaptation, if we meant business. What we have is pathetical, for purpose. >> >> We wouldn't need machine guns, or >> >> spears, or swords. Today, maybe we are better stone [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > now -- I could hit a blackbird at a distance of 50 feet. That's a small > target, but I was using small rocks and didn't kill it. -- Jim Moore You are talking about birds. Which aren't very agile, compared to predators. I am not talking abot 40 feet. Predators start to attack from 100 feet (in savanna), or from ambush, from behind (in jungle). And you are talking about hits from behind. No predator would allow you to come from behind. It smells you pretty good. It is you who would be attacked from behind. And, you cannot find a stone good enough for your purpose, in the heat of battle. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Philip Deitiker: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > behind. And, you cannot find a stone good enough for your purpose, in the > heat of battle. -- Mario First, birds are quite agile, both in flight and on branches and on the ground, but that's only a part of where you're wrong here. First, note that monkeys and apes can and do throw. Chimps especially are known for throwing things, including sticks and rocks, and are both fast and accurate. It's one thing researchers have to watch out for (DeWaal mentions a time when a visiting researcher luckily moved just in time -- they hadn't noticed the chimp picking up whatever object it was -- a piece of wood, if I remember correctly -- and he missed getting beaned in the head by a fast flying object. Chimps also do this sort of thing as a defensive move against predators (afor one example, there's that Kortland ref again -- see my site's page on predators) and when they are hunting animals. They throw, they hit things, and these blows are not minor. We also see that predators are not the kind of problem you always seem to think they are -- we've been over this ground before, and you proved yourself to be impervious to both reason and facts -- a sort of BS Superman -- but people can read my page on predators, and also look up that up in Google Groups (for instance this post of mine http://www.google.ca/groups?q=leopard+radio+avoid+author:moore&hl=en&lr=&ie= UTF-8&safe=off&selm=oxkbc.15163%24Ig.4245%40pd7tw2no&rnum=1) -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: >> J Moore: >> > Philip Deitiker: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > First, birds are quite agile, both in flight and on branches and on the > ground, but that's only a part of where you're wrong here. Yeah, right. Just to make you happy. > First, note that > monkeys and apes can and do throw. Chimps especially are known for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > site's page on predators) and when they are hunting animals. They throw, > they hit things, and these blows are not minor. Yeah, right. Only thing, scientiests failed to research this. Except Kortland, of course. I said it once, put chimps in a cage, along with your weapons. And put there a hungry leopard. This is a simple experiment. But, nobody wants to do this. They rather choose to believe in fairy tales. Well, this is their problem. They are earning money on this. But, if they want to come to truth by spreading those fairy tales, they are wasting their time. > We also see that predators are not the kind of problem you always seem to > think they are -- we've been over this ground before, and you proved [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.google.ca/groups?q=leopard+radio+avoid+author:moore&hl=en&lr=&ie= > UTF-8&safe=off&selm=oxkbc.15163%24Ig.4245%40pd7tw2no&rnum=1) And I responded to this. Don't you remember. Listen, I saw an amateur video. Lion eating human on some safari. There were something like dozen humans there, as well. No human dared to hit a stone when lion was eating still alive human. This would make lion very angry. And I saw a lot of documentaries about gorillas. If chimp is bad news, what is one gorilla? A terrestrial ape. Well, researches need to be very careful approaching gorillas. Why? Because at the first strange sound, they all are up on trees. And that was mountain gorillas. Which are living where lions are not coming. So, you do your loose business. I'll do mine. IMO, you are hopeless case. -- Mario Mario Petrinovich: >J Moore: >> First, birds are quite agile, both in flight and on branches and on the >> ground, but that's only a part of where you're wrong here. > > Yeah, right. Just to make you happy. Just to make this more clear. We all know how birds are clumsy on the ground. This simply isn't thier environment. In the air they are floating. They don't have anchor point. They cannot so fastly change direction of move, or position (if they are not at speed). This is basic phisics. And plus, this is an excellent example how you are making your standpoints. You are stretching, adjusting, until it fits your wanted scenario. -- Mario > J Moore: > >> J Moore: <snipped> > > First, note that > > monkeys and apes can and do throw. Chimps especially are known for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But, if they want to come to truth by spreading those fairy tales, > they are wasting their time. <snipped> I'm sorry, Mario, but this info is very well known and comes from research. Chimps do throw well, as do other primates besides humans -- your contention that they don't runs counter to many observations over many decades. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > I'm sorry, Mario, but this info is very well known and comes from > research. > Chimps do throw well, as do other primates besides humans -- your > contention > that they don't runs counter to many observations over many decades. Ok. What is, for you, throwing well? No2: Well for what purpose? I am convinced that you are convinced that this is true. Only, anybody realistic cannot be convinced that chimps are defending themselves by throwing stones. And throw well enough to be able to defend themselves. I never heard of such thing. I even never heard anything close to this. I only heard fairy tales. Fairy tales which was ready to acquire anybody who wonted something like this to be true. -- Mario > J Moore: > > I'm sorry, Mario, but this info is very well known and comes from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > heard fairy tales. Fairy tales which was ready to acquire anybody who wonted > something like this to be true. -- Mario I am well aware by now that the only thing you hear are fairy tales -- you should try to break yourself of the habit of blocking out facts from the real world. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> J Moore: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > should try to break yourself of the habit of blocking out facts from the > real world. -- JMoore Really? Well, then read again what I wrote. I was expecting facts as answer. And I didn't get anything. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Really? Well, then read again what I wrote. I was expecting facts as > answer. And I didn't get anything. -- Mario The facts were several posts back, and also many of them appear on my web page, and the newsgroup post I linked to had more -- you've seen them all and dismissed them in favor of your thought experiments, etc., which is one of the hallmarks of netloondom. You do, as you quite accurately say above, listen only to fairy tales -- facts just get in the way when you're doing that. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> I was expecting facts as >> answer. And I didn't get anything. -- Mario > > The facts were several posts back, That baseball pitcher killed a dove? Firstly, chimps aren't baseball pitchers. Secondly, dove isn't a leopard. We were talking about chimps and leopards. A "facts" like this you are providing all the time. These facts are good enough for you, not for me. I need facts about chimps and leopard. You leave your fairy tales for somebody else. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > are good enough for you, not for me. I need facts about chimps and leopard. > You leave your fairy tales for somebody else. -- Mario You have long held the notion that Kortland's experiments meant nothing, even though they are exactly whatr you're asking for. You can also look at how chimps throw things, like rocks, in the wild to knock down and help capture prey. And you could look at captive chimps, which also throw both fast and accurately. I realise, however, that as you state, facts are not good enough for you. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org I give up. -- Mario > I give up. -- Mario Well done, Mario: the best thing you can do with these short-sighted fanatics whose only arguments are based on misrepresentations. These blind savanna believers we find here at s.a.p are not worth the time we spend on them. Luckily the leading PAs have more open minds. --Marc > > I give up. -- Mario > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > --Marc I think "the leadinbg PAs" also understand that chimpanzees can throw well. I see Marc now comes to lend his support to someone who refuses to believe evidence of that well known and well documented fact -- not really surprising. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Marc Verhaegen: >> Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > evidence of that well known and well documented fact -- not really > surprising. -- JMoore Yes, Marc. And another thing, still, is to find a stone in forest, in jungle, in tall grass. Of the right dimensions. You think leading PAs "understand"? Well, did someone did some paper? What scientiests understand, they put on paper. No facts at all. Except a lot of believing. And no logic at all. You say that they don't have predator problem. Why, in the whole world, they are building nests on trees? They don't have predator problem, as long as they are on tree. I don't have predator problem in savanna, as long as I am in house. And, in fact, when one group of Kortlandt's chimps "attacked" dummy, they didn't even score once. From close distance. Non moving (reacting) target. This is "very" accurate. As expected from chimps, for anybody who has a decades of observation. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Marc Verhaegen: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Except a lot of believing. And no logic at all. You say that they don't have > predator problem. Why, in the whole world, they are building nests on trees? Cause thats where the leaves are. Su Solomon: > Mario Petrinovich: >> You say that they don't have >> predator problem. Why, in the whole world, they are building nests on >> trees? > > Cause thats where the leaves are. Is this a joke? They sometimes build it on trees, and sometimes on the ground. So, when leaves fall down, they build it on the ground. Good joke. -- Mario > Su Solomon: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is this a joke? Only for dimwits. Thanks for contributing. > They sometimes build it on trees, and sometimes on > the ground. So, when leaves fall down, they build it on the ground. Good > joke. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Marc Verhaegen: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Yes, Marc. And another thing, still, is to find a stone in forest, > in jungle, in tall grass. Of the right dimensions. There are other things to throw besides stones. > You think leading PAs "understand"? Well, did someone did some > paper? What scientiests understand, they put on paper. No facts at all. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > target. This is "very" accurate. As expected from chimps, for anybody who > has a decades of observation. -- Mario *You* do not have decades of observation. Other people do and that's where these accounts come from. Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> And another thing, still, is to find a stone in forest, >> in jungle, in tall grass. Of the right dimensions. > > There are other things to throw besides stones. Yes. A hand bombs. -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes. A hand bombs. -- Mario I was thinking more along the lines of sticks and branches. Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I was thinking more along the lines of sticks and branches. They would throw sticks and branches on a tiger? Why they don't throw a lot of leaves? So that tiger gets burried in leaves, and die because he is out of air? -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > throw a lot of leaves? So that tiger gets burried in leaves, and die because > he is out of air? -- Mario Large sticks and branches. Like chimps do. Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Large sticks and branches. Like chimps do. How effective chimps are, in this. Is this have ANY effect, on anybody? -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > How effective chimps are, in this. Is this have ANY effect, on > anybody? -- Mario (2) Kortlandt A 1963. Bipedal armed fighting in chimpanzees. Proc. 16th Int. Cong. Zool. 3: 64. (2) ... According to zoo and field data, the development of effective agonistic throwing and clubbing, in phylogeny and as well as in individual life, appears to depend on a semi-terrestrial life in a partially open habitat, i.e. in wooded savannas and similar types of landscape. (3) ... Savanna-dwelling chimpanzees that have been captured as sub- adults use clubs to attack a leopard when one is shown to them. It seems logical that such forms of armed fighting would develop only in habitats where arboreal avenues of escape are unavailable, and where there is sufficient room for such weapons to be used effectively, i.e. in savannas and park-like environments. (4) When throwing and clubbing are performed with full intensity, by adult and sub-adult chimpanzees (including those of forest origin), and probably also by adult gorillas, these activities are always carried out while standing, walking, or running bipedally; i.e. in a posture that is very appropriate to a savanna habitat, but very impratical in a forest habitat. > Rich Travsky: >> Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > throw a lot of leaves? So that tiger gets burried in leaves, and die > because he is out of air? -- Mario An adult male chimp could mangle you in an instant. That is theroy only because one hasn't worked you over yet but feel free to test it. They do mangle each other and they are much tougher and stronger than humans a few of which have also been mangled. In any location in which rocks are handy they can and will throw them which is why zoo keepers make sure they aren't available. They are more than strong enough to throw a rather large rock with a great deal of force. How good they are seems to depend on practice and individual ability which is also true for humans. deowll: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > rock with a great deal of force. How good they are seems to depend on > practice and individual ability which is also true for humans. I did hear that cattle mangled humans. I didn't hear that chimps mangled anybody. Give me facts, not fairy tales. And, even if this is true, when predator attacks, they cannot find "rather large rock" around. And even if they find one, they don't have enough time to use it. -- Mario >> Rich Travsky: >> > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I was thinking more along the lines of sticks and branches. Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out their bums because they always have a fresh supply handy and the bad news is they are good at it. deowll: > Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out their bums > because they always have a fresh supply handy and the bad news is they are > good at it. Anybody been killed, or badly hurt (except for that kid, which came crying). Ungulates have hooves. And strong legs. It is common thing for predators, to come out of hunt with broken ribs. And this doesn't stop them from hunting. How would chimps stop predators from hunting? This is THE question. -- Mario > deowll: > > Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out their bums [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from hunting. How would chimps stop predators from hunting? This is THE > question. -- Mario Kortlandt's 1980 paper "How Might Early Hominids have Defended Themselves Against Large Predators and Food Competitors" JHE (1980) 9, 79-112. ... The defense strategy used by chimpanzees appear to be reasonably effective. In areas where leopards, lions and hyaenas abound these apes often walk for miles through open terrain, usually creating a noisy turmoil, sometimes walking alone, but apparently without ever being molested. No direct nor indirect evidence of carnivore predation has ever been found during the long term Gombe, Mahali and Kasakati research projects. ... > > deowll: > > > Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out their bums [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and Kasakati research projects. > ... There have been known instances of predation on chimps, but it is rare (perhaps surprisingly, but it's a fact). And of course in the studies of leopards with radio-tracking collars that were presented to Mario some months ago, the researchers found that leopards actively avoid chimpanzees. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org > > > deowll: > > > > Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out their [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > leopards with radio-tracking collars that were presented to Mario some > months ago, the researchers found that leopards actively avoid chimpanzees. I missed that part of the thread, I'll have to go "hunt" it down! > > > > deowll: > > > > > Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out their [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I missed that part of the thread, I'll have to go "hunt" it down! The Google Groups link is http://www.google.ca/groups?q=radio+leopard++author:moore&hl=en&lr=&safe=off &as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=2003&as_maxd=17&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2 004&selm=oxkbc.15163%24Ig.4245%40pd7tw2no&rnum=1 Let me know if you'd like the article; I could email it to you -- kinda interesting. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org > > > > > deowll: > > > > > > Zoo keepers and visiters say what they like to throw comes out [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Let me know if you'd like the article; I could email it to you -- kinda > interesting. Request sent separately by email. The abstract is online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 2473487&dopt=Abstract Although predation is an important driving force of natural selection its effects on primate evolution are still not well understood, mainly because little is known about the hunting behaviour of the primates' various predators. Here, we present data on the hunting behaviour of the leopard (Panthera pardus), a major primate predator in the Tai; forest of Ivory Coast and elsewhere. Radio-tracking data showed that forest leopards primarily hunt for monkeys on the ground during the day. Faecal analyses confirmed that primates accounted for a large proportion of the leopards' diet and revealed in detail the predation pressure exerted on the eight different monkey and one chimpanzee species. We related the species-specific predation rates to various morphological, behavioural and demographic traits that are usually considered adaptations to predation (body size, group size, group composition, reproductive behaviour, and use of forest strata). Leopard predation was most reliably associated with density, suggesting that leopards hunt primates according to abundance. Contrary to predictions, leopard predation rates were not negatively, but positively, related to body size, group size and the number of males per group, suggesting that predation by leopards did not drive the evolution of these traits in the predicted way. We discuss these findings in light of some recent experimental data and suggest that the principal effect of leopard predation has been on primates' cognitive evolution. > For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html > J Moore: > > I'm sorry, Mario, but this info is very well known and comes from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ok. What is, for you, throwing well? No2: Well for what purpose? Throwing well: hit your target. Purpose? To hit something. This is obvious. > I am convinced that you are convinced that this is true. Only, > anybody realistic cannot be convinced that chimps are defending themselves > by throwing stones. And throw well enough to be able to defend themselves. I > never heard of such thing. I even never heard anything close to this. I only > heard fairy tales. Fairy tales which was ready to acquire anybody who wonted > something like this to be true. -- Mario Are you claiming chimps can't throw? http://www.janegoodall.ca/inst/inst_gombe_frodo.html ... Frodo soon became something of a bully. He was not well liked by other chimps - or human observers. He become one of Gombe's few accurate stone throwers! ... And here's something Marc (of all people) posted: Frans de Waal [evol-psych] 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't believe everything you hear about apes not throwing. Darwin was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have had much practice. In all research facilities with chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. This is why projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face in the crowd with deadly accuracy. Ask any worker in such a facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, their skills are even more striking. I used to photograph the Arnhem chimpanzees from across the moat, where they were at about 10 m from me. I had to be extremely careful because young males tended to throw extremely well. They would see my eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. Males more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the debate whether they know if our eyes are for seeing or not .). Then there was the mother who came to the reception with her crying son. She complained that our chimps threw stones. After questioning and an account by a bystander it turned out that the boy had thrown first, and that the same stone had come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 m. In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some smelly stuff coming their way!" Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> J Moore: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > throwers! > ... Ok. Now, lets see what "accurate stone thrower" means, for Goodall. "He hit on the idea of moving ahead of other chimps and rolling huge rocks down toward them - the rocks ricocheting from one tree to another causing the chimps (and sometimes Jane) to scramble out of the way." One more time: "rolling huge rocks down toward them - the rocks ricocheting from one tree to another causing the chimps (and sometimes Jane) to scramble out of the way." Are these your facts? Are you basing your scenario of chimps the throwers on this? Good, sound scenario you have. > And here's something Marc (of all people) posted: > Frans de Waal [evol-psych] 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't > believe everything you hear about apes not throwing. Please don't believe everything you hear about apes not throwing? Who is saying that chimps don't throw? Casual pedestrians? And all those people who are saying this, are wrong. Because they are saying this out if their heads. This one man is right. And he has proof. And he will show you proof. > Darwin > was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have > had much practice. In all research facilities with > chimpanzees it is known how well apes throw. Reserach facilities issue papers. And it is "known" how well apes (so, he is even not talking about chimps, at all, in that particular sentance, but about some apes) throw? So, what is known? It is known how well I am driving a car. Pretty bad. What is this? A joke? > This is why > projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work > with feces. They are deadly accurate, they swing around from > the back of their cage and invariably "nail" the one new face > in the crowd with deadly accuracy. From what distance? 10cm? So, the one they nailed in the crowd, they nailed on purpose. So, if they hit a crowd of 20 man (which pretty much surround an ape from all sides) the on they hit was the one they targeted. Lol. > Ask any worker in such a > facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > eye go behind the camera, and all of a sudden it turned out > they had a stone with them which they'd throw at me. And? Did they hit? So, although young males (a lot of them) targeted you from 10m distance, and you were not moving, since you were behind camera, you continued to shoot there. Are they hitting you, or not? What is this? A joke? > Males > more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > come back to him. The estimated distance of this case was 25 > m. Now, this is what I call a fairy tale. But, it looks like this is the best proof I ever heard about chimp's accurate stone throwing. And this came from man which works on reception. And which he even didn't see himself. And all those researches didn't come with anything, even close, to this. > In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has > been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes > who have had target practice. I invite all man-the-thrower > advocates for a visit - at least if they don't mind some > smelly stuff coming their way!" Are you charging for this visit? -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > to scramble out of the way." Are these your facts? Are you basing your > scenario of chimps the throwers on this? Good, sound scenario you have. Why are you confusing He become one of Gombe's few accurate stone throwers! with rolling a rock down a hill? > > And here's something Marc (of all people) posted: > > Frans de Waal [evol-psych] 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their heads. This one man is right. And he has proof. And he will show you > proof. de Waal is one of the top primate researchers in the world. "Who is saying that chimps don't throw?" People like you... > > Darwin > > was talking about monkeys, and Goodall's chimps may not have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (so, he is even not talking about chimps, at all, in that particular > sentance, but about some apes) throw? So, what is known? It is known how It's known they can throw and accurately. That's the extent of interest in the matter. > well I am driving a car. Pretty bad. What is this? A joke? Thanks for the warning about your driving. > > This is why > > projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > surround an ape from all sides) the on they hit was the one they targeted. > Lol. You don't think chimps can remember faces and detect a new one? > > Ask any worker in such a > > facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > camera, you continued to shoot there. Are they hitting you, or not? What is > this? A joke? No, it's an observation. The joke is your inability to accept the facts. > > Males > > more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > himself. And all those researches didn't come with anything, even close, to > this. Huh? > > In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has > > been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you charging for this visit? -- Mario WHy don't you ask Jane Goodall. This is her account. Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > with rolling a rock down a hill? What am I confusing? I am citing your info. Tell me what that monkey "accuratly" hit. And how he did this. >> > And here's something Marc (of all people) posted: >> > Frans de Waal [evol-psych] 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > de Waal is one of the top primate researchers in the world. "Who is saying > that chimps don't throw?" People like you... > It's known they can throw and accurately. That's the extent of interest in > the matter. It is much, much better known that God exists. Give me facts. >> well I am driving a car. Pretty bad. What is this? A joke? > > Thanks for the warning about your driving. Lol. This was a joke. >> > This is why >> > projectiles are kept away from them, and why they mostly work [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You don't think chimps can remember faces and detect a new one? Give me facts. >> > Ask any worker in such a >> > facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, it's an observation. The joke is your inability to accept the facts. What are facts? >> > Males >> > more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Huh? Ah. I see. You have something better than this? I am waiting. Why did you put this fairy tale in this scientific discussion, in the first place? >> > In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has >> > been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > WHy don't you ask Jane Goodall. This is her account. What is her account? I was on my vacation, and a lot of things happened in the last 10 days, so this discussion is like from another century, for me. -- Mario Mario Petrinovich: >> Mario Petrinovich: >>> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > did you put this fairy tale in this scientific discussion, in the first > place? Just to be more clear, here. This "fact" comes from a man who is working on a reception (do you need any cultural level for such a job?). That man didn't actually see anything. He heard from some woman that chimps are throwing stones (it was in plural, so many stones). In which direction, it isn't known. To what distance, also isn't known. A son is crying. A reception man said. Little children cry all the time. Nobody even dared to say that a child cried because it was hit by stone. Son just cried. After questioning (who knows whom, because people in zoo are in constant move), a reception man came to conclusion that a stone that son hit into the cage, chimps threw back in son's general direction. He estimated son's position to be 25m from chimp, in that moment. That could make cry son. What do you think a lion would do in that particular case (BTW, lions do 30m sprint and kill a victim). Would he burst in cry? I can imagine that scene. A chimp hits lion into head, and lion starts to cry. Lol. -- Mario > Mario Petrinovich: > >> Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > that scene. A chimp hits lion into head, and lion starts to cry. Lol. > -- Mario I would wonder if that story was accurate if it contradicted facts known from many studies of chimps both captive and wild, but in fact it is perfectly in line with what we know about chimps both captive and wild. You can continue to deny long known facts about chimps both captive and wild but it doesn't make you look very sensible. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > You can continue to deny long known facts about chimps both captive and > wild but it doesn't make you look very sensible. -- JMoore Ok. Will somebody, ANYBODY, who is proposing the scenario of Chimp the thrower, finaly give me SOME facts? I was, repeatedly, asking for some facts. I don't know why they gave me those fairy tales. I didn't ask for them. I am not interested in them. It was those people whom I asked to give me some facts, that gave me those fairy tales. Somebody said that it is well known, and well researched area. It should be a lot of facts around. Please, GIVE ME SOME FACTS. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > known, and well researched area. It should be a lot of facts around. Please, > GIVE ME SOME FACTS. -- Mario We have, many times now over a rather long period. You show no sign of having read any of it, or if you have, you dismiss it. Why should anyone conitnue to repeat these things to you if you don't pay the slightest attention? -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> J Moore: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > conitnue to repeat these things to you if you don't pay the slightest > attention? -- JMoore As far as I remember, you gave me the dummy "attack", when one of two groups of monkeys didn't hit a dummy even once, this is only a proof that Chimp the Thrower doesn't exist. And you gave me a fairy tale from that reception man. No facts nobody ever gave me. Oh, yes. And Goodall colled one chimp, the most accurate thrower. For the reasons unknown. -- Mario >J Moore: >> We have, many times now over a rather long period. You show no sign of >> having read any of it, or if you have, you dismiss it. Why should anyone >> conitnue to repeat these things to you if you don't pay the slightest >> attention? -- JMoore I want to add, also, that it is me, also, who is accepting (not only accepting, but claiming) that humans used stones to throw on predators. But, it was in environment where predators couldn't use their agility to change position fastly, or to react on throwed stones. It was when predator is in water, and humans climbed out of water. On a rocky coast, where you have a lot of sharp stones. In this situation you have enough time to pick your stone, enough opportunity to hit a predator in head. Even little children can do it. This situation also allows for gradual acquiering of throwing skills, because it is so easy and safe, for us. And not a situation where unskilled thrower is trying to win where some skilled thrower cannot. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > reception man. No facts nobody ever gave me. Oh, yes. And Goodall colled one > chimp, the most accurate thrower. For the reasons unknown. -- Mario You don't even remember who has said what to you. You give no sign of having read any of the several things that people have specifically pointed out to you, you apparently don't remember most of them, and you call them fairy tales. I repest: Why should anyone conitnue to repeat these things to you if you don't pay the slightest attention? -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> As far as I remember, you gave me the dummy "attack", when one of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fairy tales. I repest: Why should anyone conitnue to repeat these things > to you if you don't pay the slightest attention? -- JMoore Well, this is becoming amusing. How different are the ways somebody can avoid answer. Well Jim, can you give me one argument upon which you are basing your scenario of Chimp the Thrower? And don't tell me that you've already said it somewhere, that somebody else said it, that it is written on some Internet site, or some book. If it is written in some book, describe exactly what is written. We are discussing this here, and now, and this is a perfect place to state your view. Or you, posibly, think that you don't have to state anything, because this all is well known, or something. And that you don't have to have facts, also because it is well known. And things like that. But don't tell me a reception man story about how some kid came, crying. Explain how this scenario worked in a rainy forest, before we became bipedal. Also you can explain how it could possibly work on savanna (because I didn't get this, either). And then explain to me how we became bipedal according to this scenario, when it is WELL KNOWN that we became bipedal before Ice Age, and before savanna. And you can go on and on (whole your life) about relevance of this for human history, but the fact is that this simply isn't relevant, because bipeds were at least 7my here, and savanna isn't that much old. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > for human history, but the fact is that this simply isn't relevant, because > bipeds were at least 7my here, and savanna isn't that much old. -- Mario This is not a scenario or hypothesis or anything, it's just the fact that chimpanzees, as well as bonobos and in fact quite a few monekys and apes, can and do throw rather powerfully and pretty accurately. You've been given over the past couple weeks evidence of this, but instead of simply accepting reality, you've chosen to deny this fact, or ignore it, or call it a fairy tale, but it's just a fact. You can have a theory about how this fact doesn't exist (which is what you seem to be trying to build above) but that really isn't a sensible way to approach facts. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Well, this is becoming amusing. How different are the ways [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > fact doesn't exist (which is what you seem to be trying to build above) > but that really isn't a sensible way to approach facts. -- JMoore Don't you see how you are talking? What is "rather" to you? And what is "pretty" to you? For somebody "pretty" accurate is if chimp manages to hit a stone within 1m of target. But, is this accurate for savanna games? Of course not. For that it must be "damn good" accurate. You've mentioned baboons. I'll tell you about baboons. Baboons are stealing crops in Africa. Well, to scare them, humans hit stones on them. They run away. But only if men are hitting. If women are hitting, they don't even move. This simply isn't strong enough to be scared. OTOH, when men or women hit stones on them, baboons don't take those stones and hit back. That's how "rather" powerful, and "pretty" accurate they are. So, what evidence do you have? Or maybe the meaning of word "evidence" isn't the same for me, and for you. What facts exist? I am still waiting for some facts. OTOH, what I told you isn't a story. It was filmed. I saw it in some documentary about baboon behaving. OTOH, you really don't have nothing close. The "dummy experiment"? My God. This isn't for serious people. Dummy is a dummy. Not a leopard. Only somebody who real hardly wants it to be leopard, sees it as leopard. This isn't for serious people. And you are telling me how some man research chimps, and they are hitting him from 10m distance, and this affects that man so much, that he is researching on that spot, until this day. This is evidence for what? That lion can be 10m from chimps with stones, and that he can continue with his business, uninterapred by those stones. That's how "rather" powerful, and "pretty" accurate chimps are, with stones. And what is even more important, I didn't invent all this mayself, at all. All I was doing is using YOUR words, YOUR facts. That's how good facts you have. -- Mario > > J Moore: > > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > fact doesn't exist (which is what you seem to be trying to build above) but > that really isn't a sensible way to approach facts. This is like asking if horses can run vs how fast. They are two different questions. Yes, chimps can throw. How accurate is a different question. Nice pic of a chimp and throwing: http://www.michaelkrolczyk.com/travel/2001Africa/07Sweetwaters_23.html Caption: Duck! This Chimpanzee was throwing sticks and logs at us while we were on the observation deck at the Jane Goodall Chimpanzee Sanctuary - Near Nanyuki, Kenya Rich Travsky: >J Moore: >> This is not a scenario or hypothesis or anything, it's just the fact that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This is like asking if horses can run vs how fast. They are two different > questions. Yes, chimps can throw. How accurate is a different question. This is like you say "penguins were living in savanna". And I say, "well they cannot run away from predators in savanna, and save themselves". And you say, "well, they can run, for sure. I have evidence.". > Nice pic of a chimp and throwing: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > observation deck at the Jane Goodall Chimpanzee Sanctuary - Near Nanyuki, > Kenya So, how come Jane let them to that observation deck? Weren't they in grave danger? If they weren't in grave danger, and Jane even wasn't too much worried that they can be badly hurt, why in the whole world, you are showing this? If chimp meet hungry lion, chimp is in grave danger. Is anybody here aware of what we are talking about, or am I talking to 6 year old kids? -- Mario > This is like you say "penguins were living in savanna". And I say, Everybody knows that penguins don't live in savannas, at least everybody is aware of that ever since last January when you helpfully pointed out that penguins "are bipedal fish (evolved from birds)". -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org No, I won't, because it's a) not scientific, and b) a cheap hatchet job, not in the least a 'critique'. And I don't want to contribute my two cents to the ads which support this kind of arrant nonsense. >:-( PS Jim - Can you tell me how I can get a good honest hard porn site to support my miserable little website? > For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to > www.aquaticape.org [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > PS Jim - Can you tell me how I can get a good honest hard porn site to > support my miserable little website? Nice to see you giving my site extra exposure by replying -- thank you. I don't have ads on my site, that you don't know this suggests your opinion of the site is uninformed, since I can only assume you haven't seen it. (BTW, if you don't want your net wanderings filled with ads, try Proximitron -- it's completely free, easy to use, and very effective.) No, I don't know where you can get porn, but I'm sure it's available easily enough -- try a web search. I'm sorry your website is miserable -- my sympathies. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org [snip] >> PS Jim - Can you tell me how I can get a good honest hard porn site >> to >> support my miserable little website? Richard, if all you want is a miserable little website, just copy Algis's, porn will stunt your growth - didn't your mother tell you that? Jois J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> This is like you say "penguins were living in savanna". And I >> say, > > Everybody knows that penguins don't live in savannas, Do chimps live? Do chimps behave the way you are proposing? No, it is you who are making up facts. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do chimps live? Do chimps behave the way you are proposing? No, it > is you who are making up facts. -- Mario Yes, I am almost definitely certain that chimps do indeed live -- not all of them, mind you; some are dead, but the ones that are alive live. When it comes to proposing to chimps, well... that's not my territory; certainly not something I'm interested in -- perhaps you should check and see if richard01 has found anything about that subject in his searches for porn. Making up facts? interesting take on the matter, coming from someone who told us last January that penguins "are bipedal fish (evolved from birds)". -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> J Moore: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > told us last January that penguins "are bipedal fish (evolved from > birds)". -- JMoore Well, it looks like you cannot escape out of your skin, Jim. To anybody who hasn't read anything on Jim's anti-AAT site, above is perfect example. And example of his views in PA. He takes something and completly twist out the meanings. And, it looks like he really enjoys doing this. Because his anti-AAT site is really big. And this goes for penguins, too. I said that penguins are functionally fish, just like dolphins are. And, from post to post, he is twisting this. This is way he is a hopeless case. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > functionally fish, just like dolphins are. And, from post to post, he is > twisting this. This is way he is a hopeless case. -- Mario I just thought it was incredibly funny when you said it, and you of course tried to backtrack with some other silly stuff (your "functionally fish" turn, also foolishly ill-informed), but that wasn't nearly as funny. Your posts are not informative -- they are funny; face it, live with it... or you could change, but I'd be surprised to see that happen. Here's what you said about penguins (it certainly doesn't need "twisting" to look nutty): "I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. Yes, I've seen their skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped mammals, nor like monkeys. It is obvious, they are bipedal fish (evolved from birds)." That's just crazy, but at least it's funny, so that's something to your credit -- being an entertainer is a terrific art, some might say a calling -- you should embrace it. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org >Mario: "I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. Yes, I've seen their skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped mammals, nor like monkeys. It is obvious, they are bipedal fish (evolved from birds)." That's just crazy It's only crazy to blind fanatics. A child can see what Mario means. Please stop making a fool of yourself, moore. You're ridiculous. > For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Symposium.html > >Mario: "I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their pelvises. > Yes, I've seen their skeleton before. Penguins are not like quadruped [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's only crazy to blind fanatics. A child can see what Mario means. Please > stop making a fool of yourself, moore. You're ridiculous. So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? And how do penguins resemble a "functional fish'? Rick Wagler > > >Mario: "I didn't talk eaither of their walking posture, or their > pelvises. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rick Wagler I guess they're "functionally fish" in the same way that humans have the curves of a well-designed boat. :) It's a nutty idea (and now Marc jumped in to defend it, which he really should've thought better of :). Mario tried to back up with a mighty "beep, beep, beep" but he just continued to refuse to see that penguins (and he throw dolphins, the mammals not the fish, in there when he did this) are not "functionally fish" just because they swim well. Anyone defending that bizarre notion doesn't understand the great differences between fish, birds, and mammals, and instead takes an extreme enivronmentalist tack -- so you classify everything not according to relationships or their actual function, but according to where they spend their time... and in the case of penguins, this isn't even where they spend all their time. So it is just silly, and nutty, but funny. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Rick Wagler: >> Marc Verhaegen: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > So it is just silly, and nutty, but funny. -- JMoore Don't you say. Well, well known biologist, I have news for you. The great difference between fish and birds is that birds have wings, and fish have flippers (and mammals have legs). This is the greatest difference of all. A 6 year old kid knows this, but you don't know this. And everything else on their body is adapted to envorinment they are in. Penguins don't have to be so light, and so on, and so on. You see, Jim. You are just a vaste of time. -- Mario Rick Wagler: > So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? > And how do penguins resemble a "functional > fish'? Rick Wagler Rick, have you heard about my theory of how we became bipedal? Like a plunge diving birds. If you want to laugh a bit, I can tell you about it. -- Mario > So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? To swim very well. > And how do penguins resemble a "functional > fish'? They swim very well. Signaturepete > > So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They swim very well. :-) (But I'm afraid this is too difficult for the dry apers. If these idiots think they can misinterpret something they do.) pete: > Rick Wagler: >> So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They swim very well. -- pete : ). Excellent Pete. You see, I have to deal, here, with people who even cannot grasp the basic concepts. And then I am funny, or whatever. Are you interested in my ideas about (straight body) bipedalism? -- Mario >> pete: >>> Rick Wagler: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> funny, or whatever. Are you interested in my ideas about (straight >> body) bipedalism? -- Mario Please be very very careful here, Pete, the world may not be ready for gay body bipedalism. Jois >> So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They swim very well. Why single out fish. They could equally well be described as "functionally squid" or "functionally paramecia". To tell the truth I have no idea what Mario means to imply by describing penguins as "functionally fish". Rick Wagler > Why single out fish. Because that is all the swimming animals that Mario is aware of? 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/ Rick Wagler: > pete: >> Rick Wagler: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > truth I have no idea what Mario means to imply by describing > penguins as "functionally fish". Rick Wagler Well, if you continue to act like this (don't hear what you don't want to hear, and don't see what you don't want to see, although it is pretty obvious, even to 6 year old kid), soon nobody will even expect from you to understand. -- Mario > >> So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Rick Wagler Why aren't penguins "functionally dolphins" if the fact that they swim very well is the reason for that claim? Why not "functionally crocodilians"? Why not "functionally otters"? Why not "functionally turtles"? Why not "functionally frogs"? Of course, penguins are incredibly different from either dolphins or fish in that they cannot live entirely in water, a point apparently lost on Mario, and now apparently lost on Marc as well. For that matter they're extremely different from otters, crocodilians, turtles, and frogs, although physiologically they are more similar to crocodilians and turtles than the other species mentioned, as is typical of birds and reptiles. Bottom line, the claims Mario made, that "they are bipedal fish (evolved from birds)" or his attempt to save himself by claiming he meant that "penguins are functionally fish", are both extremely foolish and inaccurate statements. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org ... > Of course, penguins are incredibly different from either dolphins or fish in > that they cannot live entirely in water, a point apparently lost on Mario, > and now apparently lost on Marc as well. And the manner in which they swim is radically different from either dolphins or fish, in that they fly through the water using their flipper wings. You could say that ichthyosaurs "swam like fish" because they moved by lateral strokes of their tail fin, but dolphins, otters, turtles & penguins (to name a few) clearly *don't* swim like fish... > For that matter they're extremely > different from otters, crocodilians, turtles, and frogs, although [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "penguins are functionally fish", are both extremely foolish and inaccurate > statements. Poor Mario. I think his English trips him up. His ideas on evolution are loony, but in his struggle to express such logic as there may be behind them, he makes himself the butt of jokes because he expresses his loony ideas in an often gut-wrenchingly funny way... Ross Macfarlane J Moore: > Rick Wagler: >> Why single out fish. They could equally well be described as [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "penguins are functionally fish", are both extremely foolish and > inaccurate statements. -- JMoore Yea? See my answer to Rick. -- Mario Don't waste your time with these fanatic fools, Mario: at s.a.p we find the most stupid ones of the anti-AATers: the more sensible ones keep their mouths shut... --Marc _________ > J Moore: > > Rick Wagler: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Yea? See my answer to Rick. -- Mario > >> So what does it mean to be "functionally fish"? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > truth I have no idea what Mario means to imply by describing > penguins as "functionally fish". "swims like a fish" is an expression. Results 1 - 10 of about 598 for "swims like a fish". Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "swims like a squid" Your search - "swims like a paramecia" - did not match any documents. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+fish%22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+squid%22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+paramecia%22 Signaturepete pete: > Rick Wagler: >> pete: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+squid%22 > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+paramecia%22 Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking about straight posture of penguins, and connected this to that of cormorants, and straight body of fish. And concluded that whoever has straight body, probably got it because of influence of water on that body. Water likes straight bodies. IOW, what I said had a sense in context of what I was telling. What Jim did is to take it out of context, and start to act like a little child. "Hey, look kids what Mario is saying. Mario is too stupid, that he even doesn't know that pengiuns aren't fish. Look, I have proof. This is his words. His citation. He, he, he, hy, hy, hy, ho, ho, ho. Mario is uninformeeeeeeeed. Mario is uninformeeeeeeeed. Take this Mario : )~~. And more : )~~. And more still : )~~. Mario is uninformeeeeeeeeeeeeeed." And this is what Jim is actually doing, whole the time. He likes to do this so much, that he even dedicated whole big site to do this to AAT. -- Mario > pete: > > Rick Wagler: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Results 1 - 4 of 4 for "swims like a squid" > > Your search - "swims like a paramecia" - did not match any documents. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+fish% 22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+squid %22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22swims+like+a+param ecia%22 > Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking > about straight posture of penguins, and connected this to that of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > do this so much, that he even dedicated whole big site to do this to AAT. > -- Mario When you presented that argument, besides pointing out that penguins are not like fish at all, I also pointed out that penguin posture is not what you thought it was either. This notion arose because various AAT/H proponents have attempted to show some similarity between various aquatic animals and humans in posture, generally suggesting that human pelvises are similar to those of various aquatic animals. But in fact virtually all aquatic animals have quite narrow pelvises while humans' pelvises are wide. This is true in the case of penguins, and more directly, they do not have "straight" posture when you look at their skeletons here's a cut and paste of that part of my reply (Sci.bio.evolution): ** No, penguins are NOT similar to us, and I'm not talking about the many ways they are dissimilar other than their walking posture and their pelvis. They do not hold their legs in a very straight line directly under them as they walk, but rather more like most quadrupedal mammals do when they walk bipedally (like monkeys for instance). From their hips, their upper leg is generally held forward and bent a lot at the knee; so the lower part of their legs are vertical -- to see this you have to look at a skeleton. When you do, you also see that their pelvis is also extremely unlike ours; for one thing, like most swimming animals, it's very narrow, while ours and that of our hominid ancestors is rather wide. (In fact, the pelvis of a penguin isn't all that different from that of a pigeon, although other parts -- esp. the breastbone and wing/flippers are quite different due to the different needs of flying and swimming creatures.) OTOH, we have near relatives we do hold their legs in the manner you think penguins do (gibbons and siamangs, and to an extent, orangs and spider monkeys). I'm not saying that we necessarily had ancestors who behaved just like those apes and monkeys, but doesn't that seem far more likely than us being like penguins, especially when you consider that in reality, as opposed to the musings of AAT proponents, penguins's pelvises and walking posture are very different from ours? ** http://www.google.ca/groups?q=penguins+author:j+author:moore&hl=en&lr=&safe= off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=10&as_max y=2004&selm=bu7bla%241r00%241%40darwin.ediacara.org&rnum=1 ** And yes, I point out that "Mario is uninformed" -- because you are. If you want people to stop pointing out that you are uninformed, you have two options -- you can scream at them until they stop (not effective) or stop being uninformed (quite effective). It's your choice, but shooting the messenger doesn't work, especially when you're shooting blanks. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > When you presented that argument, besides pointing out that penguins are > not [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > being uninformed (quite effective). It's your choice, but shooting the > messenger doesn't work, especially when you're shooting blanks. I am the first one to admit that I am pretty uninformed. I am not "that much" uninformed, as you might think, though. I didn't wrote those things to prove that I am informed. But, Rick understood our discussion seriously, and it wasn't serious. It was just what I wrote. You took my words out of context, and try to make fun of them, as such (out of context). Regarding our discussion about penguins. I don't remember it very good (and am too lazy to re-read it again). I don't think that I was talking about pelvis, or skeleton, at all. You tried to suck any sense out of my words (theory). This was false understanding of it, which led to false presentation of whole situation, later. Again, as any 6 year old kid can see, penguins and we are not so dissimilar (and not only because of their coat). And penguins are not like other birds, regarding posture. Their body is upright, not horizontal. Body of plunge diving cormorants is also very upraight. They have covered nostrils, and they have something like tears. All those things are adaptation to plunge diving. And with all those things we are similar. Again, while all birds have their body horizontal, those birds changed this. Why? Because of forces comming in axial direction of body. Body becomes adapted to those forces. Muscles became adapted to them. And, after some time, animal feels better if it holds its body in a position its muscles are adapted for. Not to mention that birds which live in water, (pelicans, penguins), also have SC fat (IIRC). This is another striking similarity. We have a lot of similarity to those birds. I don't want to offend anybody, but only a fool can neglect it. Again, we do have bipedal primates (sifaka). And apes can walk bipedally. And a lot of hopping animals are bipedal. And birds, after all. For that you don't need such a straight body, as we have (look at ostrich, very fast bipedal). The reason why penguins hold their body upright doesn't have anything, eaither with pelvis, or with skeleton. -- Mario Mario Petrinovich: > And penguins are not like > other birds, regarding posture. Their body is upright, not horizontal. > Body > of plunge diving cormorants is also very upraight. They have covered > nostrils, and they have something like tears. All those things are > adaptation to plunge diving. And with all those things we are similar. And, I must definintely add this. If somebody is thinking that I am only bubbling, here. Take 10 most unique human features, and I garantee you that amongst them there will be: tears, covered nostrils (our nose), and straight body. You can add SC fat, if you like. -- Mario Mario Petrinovich It's so true, we are not worthy. > J Moore: > > When you presented that argument, besides pointing out that penguins are [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > from ours? > > ** http://www.google.ca/groups?q=penguins+author:j+author:moore&hl=en&lr=&safe= off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=10&as_max > > y=2004&selm=bu7bla%241r00%241%40darwin.ediacara.org&rnum=1 > > ** [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > very fast bipedal). The reason why penguins hold their body upright doesn't > have anything, eaither with pelvis, or with skeleton. -- Mario As my post pointed out, the posture and stance of penguins is remarkably different from that of humans. Look at a skeleton and see what they look like. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> J Moore: [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > different from that of humans. Look at a skeleton and see what they look > like. -- JMoore You said in your post that penguin skeleton is like of quadrupedal mammals. And that penguin pelvis is like that of a pigeon. And I ask you, are you nuts? You are looking at penguins, and you are seeing quadrupedal mammal, and pigeon-like bird? While every sane person see upright straight body. You are demonstrating all the time, that neither shape of skeleton, or the pelvis, has anything to do with upright straight body. As I said, it has something with muscles. Muscles just take what they have. In the case of penguins, they took its skeleton. Because muscles are adapted to put this skeleton to a position it needs to be in plunge diving, the body of penguin is straight and upward (just like that of cormorant). Just like ours. And plunge diving birds have covered nostrils, and tears. The shape of pelvis, or the shape of skeleton, has not very much to do with it. We are the only bipedal animal that has pelvis like ours. And this pelvis changed because of increased importance of Gluteus muscles during climbing vertical surfaces. Our pelvis is pulled backwards by Gluteus muscles. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >> > from ours? > >> > ** http://www.google.ca/groups?q=penguins+author:j+author:moore&hl=en&lr=&safe= off&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=1&as_miny=2004&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=10&as_max > >> > y=2004&selm=bu7bla%241r00%241%40darwin.ediacara.org&rnum=1 > >> > ** [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > mammal, and pigeon-like bird? While every sane person see upright straight > body. <snipped> I said: "They do not hold their legs in a very straight line directly under them as they walk, but rather more like most quadrupedal mammals do when they walk bipedally (like monkeys for instance). From their hips, their upper leg is generally held forward and bent a lot at the knee; so the lower part of their legs are vertical -- to see this you have to look at a skeleton." This is true. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Mario Petrinovich: >> You said in your post that penguin skeleton is like of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > part of their legs are vertical -- to see this you have to look at a > skeleton." This is true. -- JMoore Ok. I wasn't talking about walking. Walking is just a mode of locomotion. If you have upright body, walking is the only possible way of terrestrial locomotion. The main thing is, that you don't have objections about claims that penguins hold their trunk upwards, because of plunge diving. That plunge diving birds have covered nostrils and tears, because of plunge diving. That coverd nostrils and tears (allong with upright straight trunk) are their main characteristcs, which destinguish them from other birds. That SC fat develops in birds associated with water. That one of main things that destinguish us from the rest of primates is upright straight body, covered nostrils, and tears. Allong with SC fat. -- Mario > J Moore: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > destinguish us from the rest of primates is upright straight body, covered > nostrils, and tears. Allong with SC fat. -- Mario I believe we are talking about the pelvis and it's just not similar to humans at all. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org > Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking about straight posture of penguins, and connected this to that of cormorants, and straight body of fish. And concluded that whoever has straight body, probably got it because of influence of water on that body. Water likes straight bodies. IOW, what I said had a sense in context of what I was telling. What Jim did is to take it out of context, and start to act like a little child. Every sensible reader understood perfectly what you wanted to say, Mario, but thesehair-splitters have no other arguments. You don't need a straight body to run on 2 legs. Our linear body (head & body & legs in 1 line- not necessary for bipedalism, see kangaroos & hopping indris) is an argument for a (partly) swimming lifestyle once. It can't be explained by wading alone. --Marc Marc Verhaegen: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking about [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > for > a (partly) swimming lifestyle once. It can't be explained by wading alone. Or a plunge diving lifestule, : )? -- Mario > >> Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking about straight posture of penguins, and connected this to that of cormorants, and straight body of fish. And concluded that whoever has straight body, probably got it because of influence of water on that body. Water likes straight bodies. IOW, what I said had a sense in context of what I was telling. What Jim did is to take it out of context, and start to act like a little child. > > Every sensible reader understood perfectly what you wanted to say, Mario, but these hair-splitters have no other arguments. You don't need a straight body to run on 2 legs. Our linear body (head & body & legs in 1 line- not necessary for bipedalism, see kangaroos & hopping indris) is an argument for a (partly) swimming lifestyle once. It can't be explained by wading alone. > Or a plunge diving lifestyle, : )? -- Mario No, Mario: there are no indications for such lifestyle. --Marc > > >> Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking > about straight posture of penguins, and connected this to that of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > --Marc Marc, Please also remember that brachiation can "straighten" a body. The gibbons have developed a human-like gait through hanging from trees. Their pelvis ,sacrum, and hips more nearly resemble our configuration than that of other apes. If you recall from conversations I had with you some time back, I attribute many of our human traits to a change in the pelvis which resulted in the elimination of estrus in our females. Best regards, Arne > > > >> Unfortunately, the answer isn't so complicate. IIRC, I was talking about straight posture of penguins, and connected this to that of cormorants, and straight body of fish. And concluded that whoever has straight body, probably got it because of influence of water on that body. Water likes straight bodies. IOW, what I said had a sense in context of what I was telling. What Jim did is to take it out of context, and start to act like a little child. > > > > Every sensible reader understood perfectly what you wanted to say, Mario, but these hair-splitters have no other arguments. You don't need a straight body to run on 2 legs. Our linear body (head & body & legs in 1 line- not necessary for bipedalism, see kangaroos & hopping indris) is an argument for a (partly) swimming lifestyle once. It can't be explained by wading alone. > > > Or a plunge diving lifestyle, : )? -- Mario > > No, Mario: there are no indications for such lifestyle. > Marc, Please also remember that brachiation can "straighten" a body. I don't think so: 1) comparatively: atelids (the other brachiators) don't have straight bodies, brachiators have very slender bodies with very long extremities, esp. the arms. 2) functionally: aerodynamic streamlining is only important at very high speeds (unlike hydrodyn.streamlining: water is ~800 times denser than air). If you mean arm-hanging instead of brachiation (= arm-swinging): sloths, sloth bears, pottos, orangs etc. don't have straight bodies. > The gibbons have developed a human-like gait through hanging from trees. Not quite IMO: early hominoids became below- instead of above-branch locomotors, lost the tail (unlike the atelids: have grasping-tails), got more truncal erectness & became larger than OWMs. 1) comparatively: Among colobines, only the mangrove-dwelling Nasalis sometimes climb trees arms-overhead (the behaviour is also seen to some extent in some other snub-nosed monkeys), shortened the tail (N.concolor), are more erect (bipedal wading & even running), swim sometimes (eg, males to reach other mangrove forests) & are the largest colobines. This suggests early hominoids were a bit more wading &/or swimming & suspensory than Nasalis. 2) functionally: A wading-suspensory locomotion is ideal for living in swamp or mangrove forests (bipedal wading in waist-deep water & climbing arms-overhead in the branches above the swamp). From this early-hominoid wading-suspensory locomotion, all hominoid locomotions evolved (hylobatid brachiation, pongid arm-hanging, & early hominid wading-climbing (from which evolved Afr.ape KWing & human wading-diving-walking)). IOW, it might be that in gibbons some sort of bipedalism (wading) was even more primitive than hanging from branches (Nasalis parallel), but it's not impossible that gibbon "bipedalism" evolved from a surface-swimming+below-branch-locomotion (eg, c 17 Ma Heliopith & Griphopith are found in Tethys Sea coastal forests): below-branch suspension>arm-hanging>vertical arm-swimming>walking vertically on branches. > Their pelvis, sacrum, and hips more nearly resemble our configuration than that of other apes. Isn't that a bit exaggerated? (Sorry I have not time to re-read Schultz on these things.) > If you recall from conversations I had with you some time back, I attribute many of our human traits to a change in the pelvis which resulted in the elimination of estrus in our females. Best regards, Arne IMO pelvis anatomy has to do with locomotion, not with estrus. --Marc > > If you recall from conversations I had with you some time back, I > attribute many of our human traits to a change in the pelvis which resulted [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > --Marc There is more to the pelvis than bones. I speak of the soft tissues of the pelvic floor. When the bony configuration changes there is also, naturally, some adjustment of the soft tissues. In the case of H.sapiens, the female shares certain "external" sexual characteristics with the gibbon and tarsier. This is the existance of the "Labia minora" ; structures absent in the great apes. The gibbon and tarsier are capable of monogamous pair-bonding; a trait beyond the abilities of chimps or gorillas. These 3 , human, tarsier and gibbon, also show an absence of estrus behavior during ovulation. IMO, this suggests that there is a relationship between the presence of estrus in a species and the ability to form pair-bonds. Note that the ability is to form pair-bonds; which is not the same as staying monogamous. Humans are capable of monogamy but often do not stick to it. In order to find an origin for a trait, we must first define the trait as best we can, in biological terms. What is the source in the organism? What chemical and/or mechanical events bring it about? I suggest that estrus in eutherians resulted from a change in the soft tissues of the female at the evolutionary point at which the class of eutherians originated. That point is the closing of the pelvis, at the symphysis. A "something" accompanied that event which resulted in the appearance of a new trait: estrus. The other vertebrates lack this trait. Live birth was a consequence of the narrowing of the birth canal when the "pelvic ring primordia" closed. The fetus had to develop to such an extent in the uterus so as to allow the organism to "unroll" from the fetal curl. At that point it could exit the birth canal. The "something" that begat estrus was the association with a body called the "Vestibular bulb" in the clitoris. At the onset of ovulation this body, adjacent to the sensitive "Glans clitoridis", swells with blood and provides continuous sexual excitement to the female. "Heat" is descriptive of this state and the ability of a female in heat to reject any proximate male can be considered nil. A cat , cow, or canine in heat, no matter how well-trained, will always mate with the closest male. The female chimp and gorilla are notorious for the strength of their interest in coitis; but ONLY when in heat. The bonobo engages in sex outside of estrus but, when she goes into heat, will mate with any male that can get to her. The idea of a "hidden estrus" is erroneous. Estrus is either 100% on or 100% off, as any mammologist or herdsman will attest. In humans, the trait is entirely absent. Sometimes one hears the claim that the tendency of women, during ovulation, to engage in sex is the same as estrus. That tendency is the same as is found in the non-eutherian vertebrate. Those females also tend towards coitis/reproduction when ovulating. Without it any species would disappear. Fortunately there are a couple of well-defined behaviors which are seen in the estrus female. The first is an involuntary lordosis reflex. This is probably an artifact from those ancestral species in which the tail of the female had to move aside to permit copulation. (BTW, in those vertyebrates with such a caudal appendage, the tail always moves to the same side, irregardless of species) The seond trait is what is termed "standing" by the herdsman. The dairy farmer will say that a cow will "stand" for a bull, when she is in heat. In most eutherians the female will avoid coitis except when in heat. The estrus behavior of two of our "cousins" is instructive. Pan t. will engage in promiscuous mating with every male who desires her. When she tires the males available she engages in evry type of behavior in an attempt to encourage mounting. She will , when in heat, seldom feed and will ignore her offspring. The female gorilla is equally sexually excited during heat but in this species the dominant male will attempt to keep her to himself. He chases off other males and watches the estrus female carefully. Since estrus is found in the closest relation, the chimp, it is probable that the extinct hominids also had estrus. The absence of that trait is, after all, extremely rare in eutherians. IMO the ancestral "Eve" was born with a change in her pelvic floor which moved the "Vestibular bulbs" out of the clitoris to the location where they now exist ( See O'Connel's 1998 study of the anatomy of the human clitoris in which she found the "Vestibular bulbs" to be adjacent to the urethra . Apparently the anatomists who established the location, in the 19th C , were using non-human models) Eve was born without the ability to go into heat. This trait, passed-on to her female lineage, would result in a change in mating behavior. Absent the coercion of biology, the females were free to begin to engage in classic Darwinian Sexual Selection. It is impossible for a species which is subject to estrus to engage in the Female Choice form of Sexual Selection. Estrus over-rides any tendency towards choice in a mate. I have never come across a species which violates this conclusion. Darwin quite correctly noted the presence of Sexual Selection and explained how it operated on a level different from Natural Selection. He also recognized that it was clearly present in humans. I have no problem, one way or another with the AAT. Harpening gave a boost to it with his discovery of the evidence of a population constriction in our history. I believe that the loss of estrus should be seen as the reason for the diversity in appearance among humans. The formula is simple: Female Choice + geographic isolation = diversity in appearance. This is true among the cichlids of Lake Tanganyika ; in Darwins Finches ; and in H.sapiens. Estrus levels a species. The cottontail rabbit of Mexico is almost indistinguishable from the same creature in the cold reaches of Maine,USA. Pan t. looks almost the same no matter which population is studied. Nobody could see the ethnic Japanese and confuse them with the red-haired Celt of Scotland or the Negro of the Cameroon. Similarly, the number of sub-species of gibbon show a wide range of appearance. This reinforces the ability of Sexual Selection to alter a species in a (relatively) short period of time. I welcome polite questions. Best regards, Arne >>> If you recall from conversations I had with you some time back, I attribute many of our human traits to a change in the pelvis which resulted in the elimination of estrus in our females. Best regards -- Arne >> IMO pelvis anatomy has to do with locomotion, not with estrus. --Marc > There is more to the pelvis than bones. I speak of the soft tissues of the pelvic floor. OK (although "pelvis" is the anatomical term for the bone). > When the bony configuration changes there is also, naturally, some adjustment of the soft tissues. In the case of H.sapiens, the female shares certain "external" sexual characteristics with the gibbon and tarsier. This is the existance of the "Labia minora" ; structures absent in the great apes. The gibbon and tarsier are capable of monogamous pair-bonding; a trait beyond the abilities of chimps or gorillas. Yes, but humans & gibbons & tarsiers (& atelids) are have more erect trunks than great apes. Remarkably, humans, tarsiers & atelids are the primates without baculum (I have no info on baculum size in gibbons, but they do have one AFAIK). What about labia minora in atelids? > These 3, human, tarsier and gibbon, also show an absence of estrus behavior during ovulation. Is this sure? and other primate spp? > IMO, this suggests that there is a relationship between the presence of estrus in a species and the ability to form pair-bonds. Titis, idris, Nasalis concolor (simakobu, alone among clolobines), callithricids... also form pair-bonds. What about their estrus, labia minora, baculum...? > Note that the ability is to form pair-bonds; which is not the same as staying monogamous. Humans are capable of monogamy but often do not stick to it. (serial monogamy) > In order to find an origin for a trait, we must first define the trait as best we can, in biological terms. What is the source in the organism? What chemical and/or mechanical events bring it about? I suggest that estrus in eutherians resulted from a change in the soft tissues of the female at the evolutionary point at which the class of eutherians originated. That point is the closing of the pelvis, at the symphysis. A "something" accompanied that event which resulted in the appearance of a new trait: estrus. The other vertebrates lack this trait. Live birth was a consequence of the narrowing of the birth canal when the "pelvic ring primordia" closed. The fetus had to develop to such an extent in the uterus so as to allow the organism to "unroll" from the fetal curl. At that point it could exit the birth canal. The "something" that begat estrus was the association with a body called the "Vestibular bulb" in the clitoris. At the onset of ovulation this body, adjacent to the sensitive "Glans clitoridis", swells with blood and provides continuous sexual excitement to the female. "Heat" is descriptive of this state and the ability of a female in heat to reject any proximate male can be considered nil. A cat , cow, or canine in heat, no matter how well-trained, will always mate with the closest male. The female chimp and gorilla are notorious for the strength of their interest in coitis; but ONLY when in heat. The bonobo engages in sex outside of estrus but, when she goes into heat, will mate with any male that can get to her. A bonobo female wants to mate to common chimp males also outside her fertile period, but the common chimp males refuse to. > The idea of a "hidden estrus" is erroneous. Estrus is either 100% on or 100% off, as any mammologist or herdsman will attest. In humans, the trait is entirely absent. Sometimes one hears the claim that the tendency of women, during ovulation, to engage in sex is the same as estrus. That tendency is the same as is found in the non-eutherian vertebrate. Those females also tend towards coitis/reproduction when ovulating. Without it any species would disappear. Fortunately there are a couple of well-defined b ehaviors which are seen in the estrus female. The first is an involuntary lordosis reflex. This is probably an artifact from those ancestral species in which the tail of the female had to move aside to permit copulation. (BTW, in those vertebrates with such a caudal appendage, the tail always moves to the same side, irregardless of species) The seond trait is what is termed "standing" by the herdsman. The dairy farmer will say that a cow will "stand" for a bull, when she is in heat. In most eutherians the female will avoid coitis except when in heat. (it's Latin "coitus", not "coitis": from co(n) (together) + i (go) + (t)us (ending of 4the declension, also seen in, eg, fetus, with "fe-" also seen in femina, fecundus, fertilis etc.) > The estrus behavior of two of our "cousins" is instructive. Pan t. will engage in promiscuous mating with every male who desires her. (yes, but the males are related) > When she tires the males available she engages in every type of behavior in an attempt to encourage mounting. She will , when in heat, seldom feed and will ignore her offspring. The female gorilla is equally sexually excited during heat but in this species the dominant male will attempt to keep her to himself. He chases off other males and watches the estrus female carefully. Since estrus is found in the closest relation, the chimp, it is probable that the extinct hominids also had estrus. The absence of that trait is, after all, extremely rare in eutherians. IMO the ancestral "Eve" was born with a change in her pelvic floor which moved the "Vestibular bulbs" out of the clitoris to the location where they now exist ( See O'Connel's 1998 study of the anatomy of the human clitoris in which she found the Vestibular bulbs" to be adjacent to the urethra . Apparently the anatomists who established the location, in the 19th C , were using non-human models) Eve was born without the ability to go into heat. This trait, passed-on to her female lineage, would result in a change in mating behavior. Absent the coercion of biology, the females were free to begin to engage in classic Darwinian Sexual Selection. It is impossible for a species which is subject to estrus to engage in the Female Choice form of Sexual Selection. Estrus over-rides any tendency towards choice in a mate. I have never come across a species which violates this conclusion. Darwin quite correctly noted the presence of Sexual Selection and explained how it operated on a level different from Natural Selection. He also recognized that it was clearly present in humans. I have no problem, one way or another with the AAT. Harpening gave a boost to it with his discovery of the evidence of a population constriction in our history. I believe that the loss of estrus should be seen as the reason for the diversity in appearance among humans. The formula is simple: Female Choice + geographic isolation = diversity in appearance. This is true among the cichlids of Lake Tanganyika ; in Darwins Finches ; and in H.sapiens. Estrus levels a species. The cottontail rabbit of Mexico is almost indistinguishable from the same creature in the cold reaches of Maine,USA. Pan t. looks almost the same no matter which population is studied. Nobody could see the ethnic Japanese and confuse them with the red-haired Celt of Scotland or the Negro of the Cameroon. Similarly, the number of sub-species of gibbon show a wide range of appearance. This reinforces the ability of Sexual Selection to alter a species in a (relatively) short period of time. I welcome polite questions. Best regards, Arne I guess you have some interesting points, but evolution is not all or nothing, eg, when spp with estrus evolve into spp without, or vice versa. --Marc > Rich Travsky: > >J Moore: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > "well they cannot run away from predators in savanna, and save themselves". > And you say, "well, they can run, for sure. I have evidence.". You make NO sense at all. You do not know what you're doing. You can not even articulate the issue. Penguins? What nonsense. Chimps can throw. And some can throw with accuracy. Skill level is a separate question from that of being able to perform some act at all. > > Nice pic of a chimp and throwing: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > worried that they can be badly hurt, why in the whole world, you are showing > this? If chimp meet hungry lion, chimp is in grave danger. Do you know WHY observation decks are built and used???????????? BECAUSE THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF DANGER. and the deck provides safety. > Is anybody here aware of what we are talking about, or am I talking > to 6 year old kids? -- Mario You're talking AS a 6 year kid. Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > BECAUSE THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF DANGER. and the deck provides safety. Yeah, right. This is why they are called OBSERVATION decks. Lol. Rick, you are too much. If it was safe there, they wouldn't need to "Duck!". -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Rick, you are too much. If it was safe there, they wouldn't need to > "Duck!". -- Mario Obviously, debris can be thrown such that it lands *inside* the deck area. It would be much worse without the deck. I did not think you could have shown yourself any less lacking in logic but you did. [snip] >>> As far as I remember, you gave me the dummy "attack", when >>> one of two groups of monkeys didn't hit a dummy even once, this is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to >> www.aquaticape.org repest - Are you a Freudian, Jim? Jois > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What am I confusing? I am citing your info. Tell me what that monkey > "accuratly" hit. And how he did this. The throwing and the rolling are TWO separate events. This is quite clear from the account - as is the fact that chimps and not monkeys were involved. > >> > And here's something Marc (of all people) posted: > >> > Frans de Waal [evol-psych] 22.9.01: "Now, please, don't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It is much, much better known that God exists. Give me facts. I did. Chimps can throw, and some can throw with accuracy. > >> well I am driving a car. Pretty bad. What is this? A joke? > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Give me facts. I did. Chimps also recognize members of their troop. Why do you dispute something like that? > >> > Ask any worker in such a > >> > facility: it's not rare, and no illusion! Out in the open, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What are facts? Chimps can throw, and some can throw with accuracy. > >> > Males > >> > more than females, mostly overhand. (Another tidbit in the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > did you put this fairy tale in this scientific discussion, in the first > place? I said "huh" because I could not see what you were asking for. > >> > In short, the idea that apes can't throw is bogus. It has > >> > been around for a long time, but should be tested with apes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > happened in the last 10 days, so this discussion is like from another > century, for me. -- Mario And yet, that did not stop you from questioning it... Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: >> Rich Travsky: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > from the account - as is the fact that chimps and not monkeys were > involved. Nothing is clear from your source. I asked you to give me facts, and you gave me something which can be interpreted however you want it. So that author can say "Yes, but I didn't actually mean, what you concluded." and things like that. IF you take that two sentances that aren't separated at all with anything, that continue each other, and are bonded with same thread (using of stone), has nothing with each other (somebody can ask yourself, why those two sentances are so close together, then), then I am asking you, on what is Goodall basing her constatation, that Frodo is most "accurate thrower, amongst chimps". I mean, even if chimps cannot throw AT ALL, still there is someone of them who can throw most accuratly, who is the most accurate thrower. Or, is this all just a construction, rather than the constatation? >> > It's known they can throw and accurately. That's the extent of interest >> > in the matter. >> >> It is much, much better known that God exists. Give me facts. > > I did. Chimps can throw, and some can throw with accuracy. Some can throw with accuracy? How come all cannot throw with accuracy? I thought they are good at that? If some can throw with accuracy, you can take 100 chimps, and those 3 that hit your target accidentaly, you can call "accurate throwers". -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Nothing is clear from your source. I asked you to give me facts, and You WERE given facts. > you gave me something which can be interpreted however you want it. So that > author can say "Yes, but I didn't actually mean, what you concluded." and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > accurate thrower. Or, is this all just a construction, rather than the > constatation? These are TWO sentences: He become one of Gombe's few accurate stone throwers! He hit on the idea of moving ahead of other chimps and rolling huge rocks down toward them - the rocks ricocheting from one tree to another causing the chimps (and sometimes Jane) to scramble out of the way. I will break them apart for you: He become one of Gombe's few accurate stone throwers! He hit on the idea of moving ahead of other chimps and rolling huge rocks down toward them - the rocks ricocheting from one tree to another causing the chimps (and sometimes Jane) to scramble out of the way. Count them - TWO, 2, sentences. One states that Frodo became one of Gombe's few accurate stone throwers. The other relates how he alsorolled stones. Can you tell the difference? And they relate two separate sets of events. > >> > It's known they can throw and accurately. That's the extent of interest > >> > in the matter. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Some can throw with accuracy? How come all cannot throw with > accuracy? I thought they are good at that? If some can throw with accuracy, Why can't all humans throw with accuracy? Why can't all humans run marathons? Why can't all humans perform neurosurgery? > you can take 100 chimps, and those 3 that hit your target accidentaly, you > can call "accurate throwers". -- Mario It doesn't work that way. Frodo threw deliberately and with intent. Rich Travsky: > Mario Petrinovich: > These are TWO sentences: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > And they relate two separate sets of events. Ok. Lets say that this is as you say. Again, I don't see facts, here. The fact is that Goodall said it. This is the only fact. I would expect of Goodall to put it this way. You see, it cannot be that Nostardamus can predict 1000 years ahead, and that I cannot predict 5 minutes ahead. Only one person cannot be that much above the rest of population. Also, it cannot be that most chimps aren't accurate at all (since there were only few accurate chimps), and that few chimps are incredibly accurate. If most of them aren't accurate at all, the ones that Goodall called "accurate", also aren't much more "accurate" than the rest. This is simple logic. Because of that logic, the FACT that Goodall said that there were only few accurate chimps, tells that they all are not very accurate. Simple as this. This is the FACT. >> Some can throw with accuracy? How come all cannot throw with >> accuracy? I thought they are good at that? If some can throw with >> accuracy, > > Why can't all humans throw with accuracy? Why can't all humans run > marathons? Why can't all humans perform neurosurgery? Frodo didn't practice accurancy every day for 3 hours. >> you can take 100 chimps, and those 3 that hit your target accidentaly, >> you can call "accurate throwers". -- Mario > > It doesn't work that way. Frodo threw deliberately and with intent. See. You, yourself, are putting those TWO sentences together. Frodo ROLLED stone "deliberately and with intent". And then you are telling me that those sentencenses are separate. Those sentenceses are "deliberately and with intent" put together, to hit the target. To set an IMPRESSION of Frodo's deliberate accurancy. I am disgusted with such a science. -- Mario > Rich Travsky: > > Mario Petrinovich: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ok. Lets say that this is as you say. It is. No "lets" about it. > Again, I don't see facts, here. The fact is that Goodall said it. > This is the only fact. I would expect of Goodall to put it this way. I can't compensate for your ignorance. > You see, it cannot be that Nostardamus can predict 1000 years ahead, > and that I cannot predict 5 minutes ahead. Only one person cannot be that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Goodall said that there were only few accurate chimps, tells that they all > are not very accurate. Simple as this. This is the FACT. Gombe is only ONE site. Conditions and results may differ at other sites. But at least you admit chimps can throw. > >> Some can throw with accuracy? How come all cannot throw with > >> accuracy? I thought they are good at that? If some can throw with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Frodo didn't practice accurancy every day for 3 hours. Very good! But he did throw. Thanks. > >> you can take 100 chimps, and those 3 that hit your target accidentaly, > >> you can call "accurate throwers". -- Mario [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and with intent" put together, to hit the target. To set an IMPRESSION of > Frodo's deliberate accurancy. I am disgusted with such a science. -- Mario Do you know the difference between what *I* wrote and what the cite says???????????????????? Evidently not. > > Rich Travsky: > > > Mario Petrinovich: <snipped> > > Ok. Lets say that this is as you say. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I can't compensate for your ignorance. <snipped> There's willful ignorance and then there's an additional step, which Mario seems to have taken some time ago, of really, truly, believing in the great anthropology conspiracy -- an apparent decades long endeavor by hundreds if not thousands of researchers to mislead the public. This belief is a fascinating, as in the classic Mr. Spock intonation of that word. -- JMoore __ For a scientific critique of the aquatic ape theory, go to www.aquaticape.org J Moore: > Rich Travsky: >> I can't compensate for your ignorance. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not thousands of researchers to mislead the public. This belief is a > fascinating, as in the classic Mr. Spock intonation of that word. I am giving up. Sorry, I don't have that much time, on my disposition. -- Mario > If people were stone throwers, the way you are suggesting, they > wouldn't need tenis rackets. First of all, their arm muscles wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stone throwers than dogs, but still, this is pathetic. And I don't see any > reason to believe that this was EVER in better state. -- Mario You have it almost 180degrees backward. The easiest picture will be when Earth communicates with alien planets and then it is found out that all life that has civilization came from trees because primates live in trees and tree swinging and tree climbing require development of muscles in arms and legs for which it is a small progression away from using those limbs to Throw stones and rocks. Chimpanzees are designed to live in trees and they can throw underarm. No other animal creature has 4 limbs where 2 of those limbs are easily adapted to begin to throw rocks and stones. So when we communicate in the future to alien planets it should come as no surprize that all of them had ancestors similar to apes which lived in trees on their planets and who began throwing rocks and stones which created bipedalism and which eventually created civilization. All aliens with civilizations look like humans because civilization requires a time period for which a wild animal species Throws rocks and stones to transform that wild species into an intelligent species. All of the sciences owe their debt to a creature that began throwing stones and rocks. So the muscles of climbing and living in trees is not far distant from the muscles to Throw. And that makes sense on a progression logic. If you have preOreopithecus that was quadraped and not throwing and then have a Throwing Oreopithecus but not quite biped and much later have a Orrin that is Throwing and fully biped. That this progression entails that the muscles and bones anatomy are starkly different for bipedalism than for Throwing. What I am saying is that Throwing and living in trees blend so closely together that it is hard to find where the muscles and bones differentiate between living in trees and Throwing. But when you get to bipedalism which is created from Throwing behaviour that the bone structure is easily found to have Unique differences. It is harder to find unique differences between Throwing and living-in-trees and easy to find unique differences in the leg bones to prove bipedalism because it required millions of years of changes due to Throwing. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies If throwing was successful, we wouldn't need spears. I never saw a primate (or human) that is successful in this. That uses this as its defence, or attack. In jungle you cannot find enough rocks. I was in army. There we threw handgranades to 50m distance. We hardly managed to reach it. Predators attack from ambush (in jungle). In a sprint. No way you could use this. There are no rocks on trees. I saw a documentary about gorillas. On a first strange sound, they were all climbing trees. No time to search for rocks. I saw my neigbour throwing stones on my dog. Animals have so fast reaction times. My dog was so comfortable, to let stone flying to about 1m distance from its head, and then simply moved from its path. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. And not only once. You can hit an animal from behind, but when animals attacks you, you are in front. And animals attack so fast, you even wouldn't have enough time to reach to stone, even if you know where it is. And attack from behind. And, we do have bipedal animals already. Birds, hopping animals, sifaka. Why don't you research how those animals became bipedal. Especially those that are bipedal at rest. So, living in trees cannot blend with throwing, simply because it is hard to find rocks on trees. Primates are quadrupedal. No free limbs. Apes are suspensory. In suspension, your hind limbs are actually free. A suspension has something with swinging, but not underarm, but overarm. If you ask me, very weak scenario. -- Mario >--- quoting Reuters write-up on a SCIENCE article --- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >confused as to why Reuters or SCIENCE magazine bothered to publish it >since the story is 2 years old Nova is not a scientific publication. Science is. It is common enough that things that get published are already known, because there has been some informal presentation of the results, perhaps in a preliminary form. Sometimes partial results are presented at a meeting; in such a case, the meeting report will be referenced in the formal publication. Of course, one issue is what was actually said two years ago. Did they have the full story, or merely some preliminary data, or merely a plan and some intuition... we will measure ... and we suspect it may give evidence that ... Reconstructing exactly what got said (and what you remembered from it) may or may not be worth the effort. Why 2 years? Many possible reasons; I've seen much longer. One possible reason is simply putting together "the whole story" before the formal publication. In any case, it is almost certainly due to the authors. As to the journal publishing it, their frame of reference for novelty is what has been formally published. If it is a formal confirmation of something "long rumored", and thus known to be exciting, that may simply make it all the more appealing for them to accept it. Another possible reason for delay was that something was controversial. At the end of the article, they show the date the article was received and the date it was accepted. If the difference is more than 2 months or so, for Science, it may mean that there was some dispute. (But it also may not be of any great significance.) As to Reuters, all they did here was to publish a press release from Science. They are basically irrelevant. bob > >--- quoting Reuters write-up on a SCIENCE article --- > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > bob I remember the TV show as covering all the details. And so I seemed odd that SCIENCE would be coming out with a article on something that was covered completely some 2 years ago. So I think what is going on here is a tacit sign that magazine publications of Science items is rapidly becoming outmoded and impractical. That we rather need the speed of communication that the Internet offers rather than the absymal wait time for peer reviewed journalism. In fact, anyone who knows something of a specialized science field and has some expertise in the subject can readily see whether it is a article of merit or flimsy. So what I am saying is scale back peer reviewed science journalism because they are too time consuming and in place put the Internet as the preferred forum to publish any and all science ideas claims and research. And the experts in the subject can easily weed out the crap and easily recognize the worthwhile. Science magazine journalism has more losses then it has benefits to the enterprise of science. It wastes the time of good scientists that have to peer review something. And it wastes years before it reaches publication. And it often overlooks good stuff that needs publication. Perhaps the Internet has already superceded print publication of science. If not, it should. Where there is no peer review. Just slap up the articles and let the readership decide if it is worthy science or junk. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Archimedes Plutonium: > Perhaps the Internet has already superceded print publication of science. > If > not, it should. Where there is no peer review. Just slap up the articles > and let the readership decide if it is worthy science or junk. Unfortunately, this would only create big mess (IMO). -- Mario >I remember the TV show as covering all the details. That is unlikely even in principle. They can't, and it is not their job. Have you actually read the Science article in detail? Looks to me like the story has been around, but they have new evidence on the matter. Since it is inevitably gray and controversial, new evidence is always good. But I have no real comment on the merits of the work or argument. >Perhaps the Internet has already superceded print publication of science. If >not, it should. Where there is no peer review. Just slap up the articles and >let the readership decide if it is worthy science or junk. Regardless of the merits of this case... that is being considered. The physicists preprint archive is one model. BMJ is another, tho different. There is a lot of inertia (and $ interests), but new ideas are being considered and tried. Open Access is improving tremendously. Once it becomes "the norm", it is a small step to declare different "types" of publication. There are rapid, non-peer reviewed transmissions of info now. That mainly includes meeting reports. In that sense, we already have part of this. (And we also already have situations in which formal papers publish things that are already known.) bob > >I remember the TV show as covering all the details. > > That is unlikely even in principle. They can't, and it is not their > job. I think if you see the program you would admit that they did an outstanding job on covering Orrorin. A journal article never has the ability to show the visuals alongside their reporting. That is one of the most serious flaws of journal reporting is the lack of visual materials. Especially when it comes to bones such as the groove in Orrorin's femur. > Have you actually read the Science article in detail? Looks to me like > the story has been around, but they have new evidence on the matter. > Since it is inevitably gray and controversial, new evidence is always > good. > > But I have no real comment on the merits of the work or argument. Perhaps you can help me on this Anthropology issue. And perhaps it can be a conversation over a long period of time such as the one on prion disease only this time we are not diametrically opposed to one another. Your ability to carry on a conversation over a long period of time (approx 8 years on Prion disease) is admirable. Are you interested Bob? I am looking for the unique signature of bone anatomy much like Pickford's groove in the femur that proves Orrorin was biped. Only I am looking for the unique signature of Throwing of stones and rocks. I have several candidates of (1) Rotator Cuff (2) cuffs in Humerus and elbow (3) opposable thumb (4) phalanges and wrist (5) bones of back since the lower body would be the fulcrum for throwing. Trouble with this research is that climbing and tree living and tree swinging use about the same muscles and bones than does the behaviour of Throwing. So the Unique bone signature for proving an animal Threw rocks and stones has to be separated out of tree climbing and tree movement. You could help since you have a better access to journals on whether a bone anatomy has been found that implicates Throwing. > >Perhaps the Internet has already superceded print publication of science. If > >not, it should. Where there is no peer review. Just slap up the articles and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > bob Well I think by year 2050 there will be a assessment as to how much science was created that was purely never peer reviewed by journals and which had a great impact on the future of science and humanity. I think at some stage the amount of science created from non-peer reviewed will be far greater in importance than the amount of science from peer reviewed. The trouble with peer reviewed is that it simply takes too long. Whereas a person can slap up his work immediately to the Internet and let others decide if it is worthwhile. So at some point in the 21st century most science will be from unpeerreviewed articles. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies (big snips) > Are you interested Bob? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Unique bone signature for proving an animal Threw rocks and stones has to be > separated out of tree climbing and tree movement. I meant to say "crests" in Humerus and not cuffs. I am guessing that if you take a nonthrowing ape such as orangutans or gorillas that they have far fewer "crests" than do humans because their primary behaviour that differentiates them is Throwing. I do not know to what extent the human rotator cuff is unique over apes, perhaps not at all. Bob, I wonder if the genome project can isolate the genes for being biped from the genes in chimpanzees. And I wonder if the genome project can isolate the A,C,T,G for opposable thumb and isolate the A,C,T,G for Pickford groove in femur and isolate the A,C,T,G for some crest in Humerus. So that we can date which came first bipedalism or Throwing. If my theory is correct then Throwing came first and about 10 million years ago from preOreopithecus started to throw rocks and stones and then about 8 million years ago Oreopithecus was fully a Rockthrower and starting to become primitively biped. And 6 million years ago Orrorin was fully a Rockthrower plus a full biped. Bob, are the A,C,T,G able to be a dating method? Can the A,C,T,G of human anatomy tell us whether Throwing bones came first and then the Pickford femur groove came later? I think so but have no solid evidence. I speculate that the total number of bone crests in humans is larger number than any other ape because muscles for throwing need that special anchor to the bones especially in the arm bones. Bob I hope you can help because your access to science journals is so much more vast than mine. Basically I need the Unique Bone Signatures that proves an animal threw or throw underarm such as chimpanzees. But only humans throw underarm and overarm. So what are the unique bone signatures for overarm throwing. And if it is a crest in the humerus do we have the humerus of Oreopithecus and Orrorin? Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > I meant to say "crests" in Humerus and not cuffs. I am guessing that if you take a > nonthrowing ape such as orangutans or gorillas that they have far fewer "crests" [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > overarm. So what are the unique bone signatures for overarm throwing. And if it is > a crest in the humerus do we have the humerus of Oreopithecus and Orrorin? I hate to use the word "evolve" since Darwin Evolution theory is a false theory and that it should be a theory of Progression in a Superdeterministic Universe of an AtomTotatlity. But I keep finding myself in need of a term that others can relate too and "evolve" to me is more of a term of communication rather than a term of science. But getting to the above and its importance. It is likely that we can prove humans first had a Throwing behaviour which then created bipedalism. So if the A,C,T, G can act as a method of determining age then we can prove bipedalism was created from Throwing. We have the human genome and we have the Chimpanzee genome and if we compare them and find that the A,C,T,G for grooves in the femur are on a gene which is of a less-old dating than the A,C,T,G of the genes which comprise the crests of the Humerus bones or opposable thumb which is crucial for Throwing. In other words, if we can use A,C,T,G to date features of anatomy, and I think we can, then if we find that the dating of grooves in the femur are less old than crests in the Humerus or Rotator Cuff or Opposable thumb. Then we will have proven that Throwing behavior is older than the behaviour of bipedalism. We will then have proven that Throwing behaviour created bipedalism. And we will have proven all of this without even having to dig up and find a 10 million or 8 or 6 million year old fossil. We can do all of that by comparing human genome with chimpanzee genome for we know the Chimp is not bipedal but the chimp has primitive and rudimentary throwing behaviour of underarm throwing. So if the Chimp were given 2 to 5 more million years to evolve that the underarm throwing with newlyfound overarm throwing would create bipedalism in the chimp. But I do not know for sure if the A,C,T,G can act as a dating mechanism or method to figure out dates of creation. I suspect it can be a method of dating. And if it can then we can date whether Throwing came first which then created Bipedalism. Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> >I remember the TV show as covering all the details. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >reporting is the lack of visual materials. Especially when it comes to bones >such as the groove in Orrorin's femur. That misses my point. The show may have been excellent, with excellent visuals. But a TV program is not the place for a _critical_ evaluation of _all_ the evidence. Note that more visuals are being included with journal articles -- as online supplements. Aside from the ability to include "movies", it allows more figures that might be fairly expensive to print. >Perhaps you can help me on this Anthropology issue. And perhaps it can be a >conversation over a long period of time such as the one on prion disease only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Are you interested Bob? Not really. It is not a subject that interests me beyond the superficial, nor which I know much about. And it is a difficult and very slow moving field. There is so little real data. Each fossil gets analyzed to death (so to speak), but what we never really know is how typical it is. Thus people in this field make careers of over-interpreting the data. (Of course, all of us do that, but the correction process is so slow in this field.) As to prions, the only thing we have been diametrically opposed about is whether or not to follow where the data leads. So long as you insist you know the answers even when they do not agree with the data, it is not possible to discuss the scientific merits (including uncertainties). >Well I think by year 2050 there will be a assessment as to how much science was >created that was purely never peer reviewed by journals and which had a great >impact on the future of science and humanity. I think at some stage the amount >of science created from non-peer reviewed will be far greater in importance than >the amount of science from peer reviewed. Perhaps. Using a date 50 years hence gives enough room that we need not quibble about the details. Some proposals for internet posting allow for "live review", so that comments (reviews) get posted with the article. That could be good -- and could also be messy. An intermediate step may be a mixed system, with more rapid publications and also a tier of more formal, peer reviewed publication. But only time will tell. The situation now is incredibly different than it was only 10 years ago. bob (some snipping) > Not really. It is not a subject that interests me beyond the > superficial, nor which I know much about. And it is a difficult and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > over-interpreting the data. (Of course, all of us do that, but the > correction process is so slow in this field.) Bob, what I was mainly hoping is for you to tell me whether any journal literature has a *unique signature of bone* that proves the individual or animal was a *thrower*. As Pickford et al found a unique signature in the bones for bipedalism of a groove in the femur. I simply want to know if the literature already has a unique signature in the bones for Throwing behaviour. Perhaps the Rotator Cuff has crests that prove throwing. Perhaps the humerus has crests that prove throwing or perhaps the opposable-thumb. It is difficult to separate the behaviour of tree climbing and tree living with throwing. So simply I was asking whether you have a reference of a bone structure that proves throwing. > As to prions, the only thing we have been diametrically opposed about > is whether or not to follow where the data leads. So long as you > insist you know the answers even when they do not agree with the data, > it is not possible to discuss the scientific merits (including > uncertainties). In the 1990s my instinct told me that the Prusiner Model was not the correct path and that it will be dismissed and overthrown with time. I am convinced that Prion disease will be solved as Alzheimers and Parkinsons is solved in that these 3 diseases belong to a family-related disease. And since no-one had a model for Alzheimers or Parkinsons in the 1990s it was highly-silly to have a model for prion. I am willing to wait for scientists to find out how Alzheimers and Parkinsons work and thus solving how Prion disease works rather than dictate a model. Months ago it was discovered that Parkinsons is caused by fungus and bacteria in well-water by interfering with proteasome inhibitors. Prion disease is a proteasome inhibitor interference. So I am now waiting for the researchers to find bacteria and fungus that interfers with proteasome inhibitors connected to the prion protein molecule. Notice Bob that alot of Prion and Parkinsons comes in Canada where alot of well-water and fungus live and grow. Bob, any news as to whether bacteria and or fungus cause a proteasome inhibitor interference in Alzheimers? Archimedes Plutonium www.archimedesplutonium.com 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.