 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / September 2005Proving Stonethrowing theory and that stonethrowing preceded bipedalism; genetic marker in male DNA
Today I was doing a little experiment of teaching my 5 Manx kittens to climb a tree. My previous cat was a female that farmed every tree in the in the vicinity for young birds to eat. So I decided to see if I can train these 5 kittens to climb trees and to see whether they like the experience. So I put a electric extension cord in the upper limb and baited the end with a slice of salami tied to a string. Salami is their favorite food. So I tie a slice of salami and gradually hoist it up the tree as the kitten/s is trying to vie for the slice. Sometimes I could get 3 kittens vying for the same slice and I could get them about 10 feet up the tree. Most of them ate the slice while still hanging on the tree by their claws. But this experiment left me with something learned also. I was thinking of why the males did not climb the tree and only the females. Now I realize that both male and female cats can climb trees but it seems as though only the females really relish climbing. Perhaps it is the smaller size of females that they like climbing. But what I then thought about was stonethrowing compared to bipedalism. If my theory of Stonethrowing is true then stonethrowing came first and later created bipedalism. But the genetics of Stonethrowing would favor one sex over another sex, just as climbing trees favors female cats more than it favors male cats. And the genetics for the behaviour of throwing or of running differences between male and female would be found in the X and Y sex chromosomes. Now then, let us compare the differences between modern human male and female per their ability to throw and to run. If the Stonethrowing theory is correct that it preceded bipedalism then this difference in throwing between male and female should be a greater difference than the difference in running. On the other hand if bipedalism came first before throwing then the differences between male to female should show a larger disparity in running than throwing for male to female. In sports of the Olympics, the running ability of top female athletes compared to top male athletes is less of a difference than is the difference in throwing sports. A top male athlete can throw a fast ball about 33% faster than a female. But the science proof of Stonethrowing theory and that throwing created bipedalism should be found in the X chromosomes of males and the favoring of throwing bones and muscles for which the female chromosomes do not favor that throwing ability. The disparity in running between male and female should be found in genetics also, but the disparity in throwing in male to female should be larger of a disparity then that of running. And finally, if the genetics of throwing can be pinpointed in the human genome and thence we can find the genetics for running/walking and if those throwing genetics are more fundamental or basic than walking/running would prove the Stonethrowing theory. The analogy can be drawn from cats in that the female cat has genetics that favor climbing trees whereas the male cat is not prone to climb trees. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > If my theory of Stonethrowing is true then stonethrowing came first and > later created bipedalism. But the genetics of Stonethrowing would favor [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > before throwing then the differences between male to female should show > a larger disparity in running than throwing for male to female. Not to be nitpicky, but you went from claiming that the stonethrowing theory is your theory to calling it "the" theory. Coupled with the fact that there's a bunch of unexplained statements in the portion I quoted, I felt like you're trying to trick us into believing something. I stopped reading after the quoted part. > > If my theory of Stonethrowing is true then stonethrowing came first and > > later created bipedalism. But the genetics of Stonethrowing would favor > > one sex over another sex, just as climbing trees favors female cats > > more than it favors male cats. And the genetics for the behaviour of > > throwing or of running differences between male and female would be > > found in the X and Y sex chromosomes. [snip] Have you checked to see what kinds of genes exist on the Y chromosome? IIRC nothing on the Y chromosome seems to be related to behaviour or arm strength or bipedalism. Does it have anything to do with muscles or bones? Bones and muscles are the kinds of things that would make one sex better at an activity than the other. Wouldn't you have to establish this first, before going on to something else? Jois Have you checked to see what kinds of genes exist on the Y chromosome? IIRC nothing on the Y chromosome seems to be related to behaviour or arm strength or bipedalism. Does it have anything to do with muscles or bones? Bones and muscles are the kinds of things that would make one sex better at an activity than the other. Wouldn't you have to establish this first, before going on to something else? Jois Would not have to establish that for it is commonsense that male chromosomes enhance certain muscles and bones of males over females. The only thing that has to be established is the specific A,C,T,G that allows males to throw 33% faster than females. Once we get the A,C,G,T code that allows for throwing, then we simply find the ACTG code that codes for bipedalism. Once we find the code for bipedalism, we simply check to see whether bipedalism is embedded within throwing. Embedded or a subset of throwing implies that throwing is the basic foundation and created bipedalism. Throwing is primary and bipedalism is secondary. A different proof is to show a signature bone or muscle such as the Rotator Cuff and that it is primary and dates further back than does the signature bones of bipedalism. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > Have you checked to see what kinds of genes exist on the Y chromosome? > IIRC [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Would not have to establish that for it is commonsense that male > chromosomes enhance certain muscles and bones of males over females. [snip] I understood that the Y chromosome contained next to nothing, certainly nothing to brag about, so it doesn't seem commonsense that there is much room for enhancing much of anything in there. Seems like the foundation of you idea isn't very supportive. Jois The logic of my argument rests mostly on the male X chromosome and how the X chromosome enhances muscle and bone of Rotator Cuff for throwing and femur groove for bipedalism. Since male humans are faster at running and faster and more efficient at throwing then there is some coding of this enhancement on the X chromosome. The YY compliment for females would produce a Rotator Cuff and a femur groove as well as the YX result, however, there must be something on the X chromosome that enhances the Rotator Cuff and femur groove that makes the male more efficient in throwing and running. And according to the Stonethrowing theory, the enhancement for the Rotator Cuff is many million years older than the femur groove because Throwing created bipedalism. Now one can argue that the male hormones enhance all the bones and muscles more than the female hormones. If that is the case, then it will not prove the Stonethrowing theory. And I would have to look for a different proof procedure. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies But I think I can eliminate the hormone argument. Consider the birth of the behaviour of Stonethrowing and allow me to assume it was a male member. So this is the world's first Stonethrowing primate which in about 8 million to 10 million years in the future would be humanity. I can further assume that the males and females of this stonethrowing individual had different hormones. And it was not the hormones that created the superior rotator cuff to allow for this new behaviour but it was some mutation in that individual that would eventually become the superior rotator cuff. A mutation of the A,C,T,G coding. Otherwise we would have to say that hormones are muscle specific or bone specific or organ specific and the mutation is in the hormonal system itself. But that is obviously false. Another way of saying it is that if it is hormonal then the behaviour of throwing or bipedalism would be confined to the sex in which it first appeared some 8 million years ago and there would be a huge difference in throwing and running between males to females. So this suggests that the behaviour of Throwing and later that of bipedalism was due to small genetic mutations in the A,C,T,G so that although both male and female have Rotator Cuffs and have femur grooves, the DNA sequence for males of the Rotator Cuff and femur groove is different in human males compared to human females. Hormones can enhance the difference but the difference exists in the coding of the A,C,T,G. So when the femur groove coding is found and when the Rotator Cuff coding is found they should have small differences in male to female. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >The logic of my argument rests mostly on the male X chromosome and how >the X chromosome enhances muscle and bone of Rotator Cuff for throwing >and femur groove for bipedalism. Well, female mammals are XX and male mammals are XY. The Y chromosome contains only a few genes. So much for what your argument rests on. >Since male humans are faster at running and faster and more efficient >at throwing then there is some coding of this enhancement on the X [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Cuff is many million years older than the femur groove because Throwing >created bipedalism. Male humans have a higher center of gravity, a narrower pelvis and longer arms and legs. Male hormones enhance muscle development. This helps with running and throwing. You can argue just as well that bipedalism was "created" by the usefulness of being able to carry big-brained infants that are born too undeveloped and weak to hang onto their mothers' backs, like infant monkeys do. Or the advantage of being able to haul home baskets of roots and berries and chunks of carrion. Personally, I like the theory that bipedalism derives from a littoral lifestyle with a lot of foraging for shellfish in shallow water (the aquatic ape theory). But I know I'm merely a dilettante, and my opinions in the matter are not of much value. >Now one can argue that the male hormones enhance all the bones and >muscles more than the female hormones. If that is the case, then it >will not prove the Stonethrowing theory. And I would have to look for a >different proof procedure. Right. Somehow, I don't think you'll let facts bother you, nor the possibility that your theory is wrong. I must have had too much coffee today. I find myself answering this man. I often seed some of my posts with a obvious minor error, such as the above where I mix up female X with male Y chromosomes. I do this to bring in more discussion. However, I did the mix up because I have the suspicion that the X chromosome carries the improvement of the Rotator Cuff and the femur groove. As one writer already noted that the Y chromosome carries little A,C,T,G coding but the X chromosome carries alot of A,C,T,G coding. So the mutation of genes some 8 to 10 million years ago that produced a prehuman individual that had a likening or disposition to throw rocks and stones, was probably on the X chromosome where the mutation arose. So I need some research facility such as the Max Planck genetics labs to compare the genome sequence of Chimpanzee to that of human genome to localize the A,C,T,G that codes for Rotator Cuff and femur groove. I have the hunch it is found, in part, on the X chromosome. Perhaps not all of the coding for Rotator Cuff and femur groove is found on the X chromosome, but a portion of the coding that governs the development of the Rotator Cuff and femur groove is found on the X chromosome. Once we find the A,C,T,G for the Rotator Cuff and femur groove we will answer the Stonethrowing theory and by answering that, we probably will have finished the bulk of the work of what is called the science of anthropology. Because if the Stonethrowing theory is correct then I would estimate that 90% of the science of anthropology is over with and ended as a science. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > I often seed some of my posts with a obvious minor error, such as the > above where I mix up female X with male Y chromosomes. I do this to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > chromosome carries little A,C,T,G coding but the X chromosome carries > alot of A,C,T,G coding. [snip] . > So I need some research facility such as the Max Planck genetics labs > to compare the genome sequence of Chimpanzee to that of human genome to > localize the A,C,T,G that codes for Rotator Cuff and femur groove. I > have the hunch it is found, in part, on the X chromosome. [snip] > Archimedes Plutonium > www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Seems to be a problem or two here. Making boo-boos in your pet theory isn't a good way to attract scientific researchers or grant money and hoping some research facility will find your theory on the internet and plunge thousands or millions into proving your theory, well, you might as well make that hope into a wish when you blow out your next set of birthday candles. The best way to get this kind of work done is to save up a lot of money and fund the grand yourself. You could take out a large insurance policy and specify that your grant would receive the proceeds of the policy upon your death. You might also check on the locations of the rotator cuff and femur groove before you contact your insurance agent. Jois > > I often seed some of my posts with a obvious minor error, such as the > > above where I mix up female X with male Y chromosomes. I do this to [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jois You have such a low opinion of science and such a commercial opinion of science that I hope you are not in science itself. There is already research underway regarding the truth of the Stonethrowing theory. Not just the more accurate anthropology dig sites such as the Pickford Orrorin site where they sloppily overlooked the rocks and stones associated with Orrorin, but rather, indubitable genetic proof that genetics of treeliving by primates turns into genetical throwing by these primates which later becomes bipedalism. Truth does not go begging for smart people to research it, truth goes busting and barging forth, like a burst dam of water goes lashing forth. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > > I often seed some of my posts with a obvious minor error, such as the > > > above where I mix up female X with male Y chromosomes. I do this to [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > You have such a low opinion of science and such a commercial opinion of > science that I hope you are not in science itself. Pish. > There is already research underway regarding the truth of the > Stonethrowing theory. Not just the more accurate anthropology dig sites > such as the Pickford Orrorin site where they sloppily overlooked the > rocks and stones associated with Orrorin, but rather, indubitable > genetic proof that genetics of treeliving by primates turns into > genetical throwing by these primates which later becomes bipedalism. What are you fussing about then? Why did you say, " So I need some research facility such as the Max Planck genetics labs to compare the genome sequence of Chimpanzee to that of human genome . . .." > Truth does not go begging for smart people to research it, truth goes > busting and barging forth, like a burst dam of water goes lashing > forth. Have you met Algis? Marco? Pauline? Richard? You can't just spout off about your own ideas but you need to read ideas of others, too. > Archimedes Plutonium Wasn't Archimedes an owl? Jois > > > > I often seed some of my posts with a obvious minor error, such as the > > > > above where I mix up female X with male Y chromosomes. I do this to [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Wasn't Archimedes an owl? Hey Archi, exactly what is it about you that makes you think you've got something of value to contribute to the science of human evolution? Do you actually have any formal training in paleoanthropology, physical anthropology, archaeology, genetics? Or did you just dream all this nonsense up? Why should we believe that you are anything more than what you appear: a common-or-garden netloon with a slippery-slope hypothesis based on a whole series of half-baked suspicions, suppositions and syllogisms that have no concrete basis in fact or evidence (as they seem)? Yours fraternally, Ross Macfarlane I don't know anything about this stuff, but here's my theory. Stone throwing doesn't win a fight. You might as well just yell at your enemy. We would have found large piles of stones in areas where our four legged predecessors lived by now if they threw stones. If they didn't gather stones, I don't think they'd find stones of the right size so easily, especially not in trees. Do today's apes throw stones enough to consider them stone throwers? If they do, then ignore my theory. I'm talking about significant stone throwing. I believe that the four leggers got smart for some reason and didn't have to worry as much about predators, so they didn't have to be large and didn't need four legs to support their weight. That might not apply here though, because we didn't directly evolve from large animals, but the four Leggers also didn't need to hide in trees, so they didn't have to be built to climb or crawl on four legs. Throwing only became a significant advantage when we started making spears, and I doubt that there's evidence that four Leggers made spears. But paleontology and evolutionary studies is a waste anyway. Let the creationists have their way and don't teach evolution OR any creationist theory. More shop classes would be more useful. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barry, Use your common sense. You are walking along and a large growling dog with fangs appears. You know you cannot run fast enough to beat him/her to the nearest tree. So you look for either a stick object or a rock object. If you stoop or squat like a knuckle walker, you can't aim properly or throw properly or swing the stick well. This is the moment in pre-history that bi-pedalism was selected for. You say that throwing stones was not an effective defense. Study the dog's behavior. If you even LOOK like you have an object in your hand, the dog flees. If you even PRETEND a throwing motion, the dog flees. This predator is already selected for survival responses to these human physiological actions. Use your old bean, Youngblood. You don't need to be hit with a rock more than once to know that this weapon system is painful and deadly. > If you stoop or squat like a knuckle walker, you can't aim > properly or throw properly or swing the stick well. For humans and four legged animals, the arms and legs naturally point downward, so it would take the same amount of rotation to throw, but I do realize that if I usually walked on all fours, I'd be at a disadvantage if I had to use my front legs to throw. > You say > that throwing stones was not an effective defense. Study > the dog's behavior. If you even LOOK like you have an object > in your hand, the dog flees. If you even PRETEND a throwing > motion, the dog flees. This predator is already selected for > survival responses to these human physiological actions. Snarling and pretending to lunge have similar effects without requiring the evolution of different physiology. > If you even LOOK like you have an object > in your hand, the dog flees. If you even PRETEND a throwing > motion, the dog flees. This predator is already selected for > survival responses to these human physiological actions. I think that's true only if that particular dog has experienced being beaten with an object in someone's hand. Otherwise, the dog is probably running away from a moving person without regard to the object in his hand. If the object makes the person look larger, then the dog might percieve the person as being larger. I don't believe that any animal evolved to fear an indication of a stone in a person's or animal's hand due to stone throwers having stoned to death animals who didn't fear it. Spear throwing is more effective, but spears for throwing take intelligence to make. I think spears were used as hand-held weapons, made of broken branches, before throwing weapons. No four legger ever made a throwing spear. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I see your point. The dog's behavioral reaction could be learned and not gene coded. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` |
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
|
©2008 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.