http://barefootrunner.org/
RichTravsky
rmacfarl
> http://barefootrunner.org/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Roeber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila
"
1960 Summer Olympics
... A couple of hours before the [marathon] race the decision was
taken by Abebe to run barefoot, the way he'd trained for the race...
Bikila won in a record time of 2:15:16.2, becoming the first African
to win an Olympic gold medal...
"
Marc Verhaegen
Op 10-02-2009 09:29, in artikel
fc1b3f92-e870-4fb5...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com, rmacfarl
<rmac...@alphalink.com.au> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen
forgot chimps 50
all barefoot
SF:
Lee Olsen
> > horses run 60 km/hr, dogs 50, cheetahs 100
>
> forgot chimps 50
>
Kudus zero:
http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
Horses slower than Homo:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1804000/1804830.stm
rmacfarl
Bikila: winning gold for Africa
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2481230.htm
At the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome, Ethiopian Abebe Bikila won the
marathon gold medal. What made this a remarkable achievement was that
he ran barefoot and no-one knew of him. What was also remarkable was
that he was the first black African to win an Olympic medal at a time
when Africa was facing a new dawn in post-colonialism. He thereby
became symbolic of a new African future.
J.LyonLayden
If I were to start saying that Homo came from Mars would you academics
actually entertain that notion with daily refutations?
Where's the anthropology on the anthropology forum, anyway?
BTW Marc, erectus was a faster runner than Hss because he had smaller
hips. We got our big cumbersome hips from birthing big brained babies.
We can't clock erectus now, but with much stronger leg muscles and
smaller hips, he was pretty obviously just as fast, or faster than, a
chimp.
And Lee- the horse had two 40 minute water/rest breaks. So the dude
was much, much slower than the horse.
Rick Wagler
"J.LyonLayden" <Joseph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59ac14bd-3ed8-4e0c...@b16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
to prevent complete collapse and the man didn't why should
those eighty minutes not count? If the horse didn't need the
breaks but was granted them anyway to prevent abuse etc
to the horse that's another thing entirely. And if you factor
in the rider things get even more complicated. But the point is
it would be assumed by many that the race is such a foregone
conclusion in favour of the horse why bother to race at all.
The fact that the results raise this kind of discussion should tell
you something.
Rick Wagler
Lee Olsen
> Wow I would not have even known that this was an attack on AAT.
>
> If I were to start saying that Homo came from Mars would you academics
> actually entertain that notion with daily refutations?
> Where's the anthropology on the anthropology forum, anyway?
Where is the anthropology in your reply?
>
> BTW Marc, erectus was a faster runner than Hss because he had smaller
> hips. We got our big cumbersome hips from birthing big brained babies.
>
> We can't clock erectus now, but with much stronger leg muscles and
> smaller hips, he was pretty obviously just as fast, or faster than, a
> chimp.
>
> And Lee- the horse had two 40 minute water/rest breaks. So the dude
> was much, much slower than the horse.
Of course, without the breaks, Mr. Karoha would have had the horse
skinned
sooner. The idea of ER is to keep the animal away from water and make
him
sweat. Team work would insure this.
Chimps, hunting dogs, hyenas, etc. are smart enough to hunt in
teams. There is no reason to suspect Homo e was not smart enough
to figure this out also. I know I wouldn't hunt alone in Africa. In
every
case I know of, when hunters take kills away from cats, they do it in
groups or at least work in pairs. They do this with a 100% sucess
rate (Bartram, 1997).
By the way, the horse was a specially bred and trained racehorse in
top
condition. Most victims of predators are the very old, very young,
sick,
or injured. I'm not claiming Homo e could win the Boston Marathon. One
doesn't have to in order to catch a Kudu, all you need is a little
smarts
and a little endurace. That's why we eventually got to the moon and
lions didn't.
Marc Verhaegen
> BTW Marc, erectus was a faster runner than Hss because he had smaller
No, He was a lousy runner: He had much longer & horizontal femoral necks &
flaring ilia, which allows good ab- & adduction, but not suited for running
forward.
Besides, He was much too heavy to run well: windhounds & arabic horses are
much more gracile than less cursorial dogs or horses. Human long-distance
runners (eg, E.Africa = open country) are much more lightly built than 100m
sprinters (often W.Africa). If He had been a runner, esp.long-distance,
he'd had no medullary stenosis & no pachyostosis.
> We got our big cumbersome hips from birthing big brained babies.
The usual just-so thinking, without evidence. A.Schultz:
- monkeys has rel.narrow pelvic passages for birthing, as humans,
- apes have rel.wide pelvic passages & easy birthing (cf.very high ilia),
- Lucy had a rel.very braod pelvis (& body & skull), rel.broader than ours,
but ape-sized brain.
> We can't clock erectus now, but with much stronger leg muscles and
> smaller hips, he was pretty obviously just as fast, or faster than, a
> chimp.
No way: chimps are much stronger & faster than humans, and have bones like
Hs & all primates, much more gracile than He. African people generally have
heavier leg bones & stronger leg muscles than most other humans, comparable
to other primates, but totally unlike the He. That He was a good runner has
been disproven:
http://users.ugent.be/%7Emvaneech/Verhaegen%20et%20al.%202007.%20Econiche%20
of%20Homo.pdf
Lee Olsen
> > BTW Marc, erectus was a faster runner than Hss because he had smaller
> > hips..
>
> No, He was a lousy runner: He had much longer & horizontal femoral necks &
> flaring ilia, which allows good ab- & adduction, but not suited for running
> forward.
Why believe an amateur when you have pros that know something?
Abstract
"Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
behavior in fossil taxa. However, to date only external linear
dimensions
have been included in such analyses of early hominins. In this study,
cross-sectional measures of femoral and humeral diaphyseal strength
are determined for the two most complete early Homo erectus (or
ergaster) associated skeletons the juvenile KNM-WT 15000 and the adult
KNM-ER 1808. Modern comparative samples include an adult human
skeletal sample representative of diverse body shapes, a human
longitudinal
growth series, and an adult chimpanzee sample. When compared to
appropriately age-matched samples, both H. erectus specimens fall
very close to modern human mean proportions and far from chimpanzee
proportions (which do not overlap with those of humans). This implies
very similar mechanical load-sharing between the lower and upper
limbs, and by implication, similar locomotor behavior in early H.
erectus and
modern humans. Thus, by the earliest Pleistocene (1.7 Ma), completely
modern patterns of bipedal behavior were fully established in at least
one early hominin taxon (Ruff, 2008)."
Christopher Ruff
Femoral/humeral strength in early African Homo erectus
Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 383-390
"In any event, being better at noticing speed than noticing
slowness was a useful bit of evolution for the human race,
making it easier for our ancestors to close in on a four-legged
dinner sprinting across the savannah."
Natural History July/August 2005 Vol 114(6):14
> Besides, He was much too heavy to run well: windhounds & arabic horses are
> much more gracile than less cursorial dogs or horses. Human long-distance
> runners (eg, E.Africa = open country) are much more lightly built than 100m
> sprinters (often W.Africa). If He had been a runner, esp.long-distance,
> he'd had no medullary stenosis & no pachyostosis.
>
> > We got our big cumbersome hips from birthing big brained babies.
>
<Snip delusional rubbish>
>
> No way: chimps are much stronger & faster than humans,
Is that why they can't catch a kudu? Or beat a horse in a race?
<snip rest of Marc's ignorance, not worth a reply>
Marc Verhaegen
>>> BTW Marc, erectus was a faster runner than Hss because he had smaller
>>> hips..
>> No, He was a lousy runner: He had much longer & horizontal femoral necks &
>> flaring ilia, which allows good ab- & adduction, but not suited for running
>> forward.
SF snipped evidence & produced some blabla:
> Why believe an amateur when you have pros that know something?
because your "pros" extrapolate (biased) evidence from Hs to non-Hs
creatures instead of using evidence that applies to all animals
shut up & run after you kudu my boy
Lee Olsen
> >>> BTW Marc, erectus was a faster runner than Hss because he had smaller
> >>> hips..
> >> No, He was a lousy runner: He had much longer & horizontal femoral necks &
> >> flaring ilia, which allows good ab- & adduction, but not suited for running
> >> forward.
>
> SF snipped evidence
Evidence, you call that evidence? I call it silliness.
Listening to you, you would think Homo e was an invalid.
> & produced some blabla:
>
> > Why believe an amateur when you have pros that know something?
>
> because your "pros" extrapolate (biased) evidence from Hs to non-Hs
> creatures instead of using evidence that applies to all animals
We are not penguins, in case you haven't noticed. Penguins didn't
leave
stone tools scattered all over the hot savanna.
>
> shut up & run after you kudu my boy
Go buy a better dictionary: "What's a charade? Not in my dictionary."
rmacfarl
> Wow I would not have even known that this was an attack on AAT.
>
It wasn't. It was about facts, which are of little use to AAF.
J.LyonLayden
doesn't either.
Liberals and animal rights activists care more about horses than
humans, that's why the horse was FORCED to take two 40 minute breaks
and the man wasn't.
Read the article- he took advantage of the mandate on horse breaks.
That means he didn't rest for an hour and 20 minutes like the horse
did, and he STILL almost lost.
And it still has nothing to do with AAT, or Martians, or little
gnomes, or any other preposterous notion like those.
J.LyonLayden
we are weaklings. Homo erectus was much stronger than us, probably
approaching the strength of a chimp. And they were faster runners than
us too, like Lee pointed out. One scientist who fits your agenda does
not rewrite history.
Lee Olsen
> Uh...no....a man does not need two 40 minute breaks. And the horse
> doesn't either.
Neither do kudus...
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups
have traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes
or other
game in the midday heat, often for hours, until the animals overheat
and collapse."
>
> Liberals and animal rights activists care more about horses than
> humans, that's why the horse was FORCED to take two 40 minute breaks
> and the man wasn't.
>
> Read the article- he took advantage of the mandate on horse breaks.
> That means he didn't rest for an hour and 20 minutes like the horse
> did, and he STILL almost lost.
ROFL. Mr. Karoha would have cornered the horse in the rocks, no sand
to
save his hooves. The horse would have been lame in a couple of miles.
http://tinyurl.com/32ryet
"In fact, Australian Aborigines and various Native American and
African groups
have traditionally practiced “persistence hunting,” chasing antelopes
or other
game in the midday heat, often for hours, until the animals overheat
and collapse."
>
> And it still has nothing to do with AAT,
>or Martians, or little
> gnomes, or any other preposterous notion like those.
???? Having problems reading the subject line?
Lee Olsen
> Marc,
> we are weaklings. Homo erectus was much stronger than us, probably
> approaching the strength of a chimp. And they were faster runners than
> us too,
But it really isn't about speed. Mr. Karoha only averages about 5 mph,
nowhere near
marathon times, to eventually wear down a kudu. It is about brains
also, getting the
animal away from water holes and into rough ground is also part of the
game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leakey
"The Leakey boys participated in games conducted by both adults and
children, in which
they tried to imitate early man, catching springhares and small
antelope by hand on
the Serengeti. They drove lions and jackals from the kill to see if
they could do it.[1]"
1 Virginia Morell, Ancestral Passions, Copyright 1995, Chapter 18,
"Richard Makes his Move".
Marc Verhaegen
> we are weaklings. Homo erectus was much stronger than us,
you think so
> probably approaching the strength of a chimp.
unproven assertion, which no doubt is completely false
> And they were faster runners than us too
ridiculous :
Bramble and Lieberman (2004), in a much-discussed review article in Nature,
cite a number of derived Homo features they claim to be adaptations for more
efficient endurance running in arid, open habitats. However, while some of
these supposedly Ścursorial adaptationsą appear first in the fossil record
in H. habilis, others appear first in H. erectus, and others still in H.
sapiens, suggesting a much more complex story than proposed by Bramble and
Lieberman. Their conclusions are reached without systematic comparisons
with other animals (including endurance runners) and with general
comparisons restricted to fossil hominids and Pan. Since convergent traits
are strong indicators of evolution in similar environments (Bender 1999), a
systematic comparison with a broad range of animals with a variety of
locomotor strategies would have been more informative.
In addition, discussion of possible locomotion styles is restricted to
walking and running, with no consideration at all given to activities such
as wading, swimming or underwater foraging, yet humans are regular waders
and more accomplished swimmers and divers than other primates. Most of the
listąs Śadaptationsą for walking could just as easily be explained by
wading. One of the frequent Śexplanationsą in the list is łstress
reduction˛, a reference to the vertical posture of humans with the weight
resting on two legs. But this says nothing about endurance running, with
standing, wading, walking or short distance running all using a similar
posture, and therefore all requiring stress reduction. Other Śexplanationsą
include łcounter rotation˛, łthermoregulation˛ and łstabilization˛, but no
comparative data to corroborate these interpretations are provided. In
other words, their Śexplanationsą are ad hoc suppositions, applied to one
example (human ancestors) without any consideration as to whether these
supposed adaptations are seen in other animals, which means their
Śexplanationsą are statistically invalid (n=1). Long legs, and possibly
shortened forearms, could be seen as running adaptations, but these are just
as typical of wading and swimming species compared with runners (Hildebrand
1974: 584, Bender 1999).
In a waterside scenario, wading and swimming would be preadaptative to the
humanlike Śverticalą locomotion that Bramble and Lieberman (2004) believe to
be a direct adaptation to endurance running. In our view, frequent
terrestrial locomotion, whether for walking or for (relatively slow)
running, was more recent (Homo sapiens) and could not be derived directly
from an ancestral locomotion in forests, whether on the ground or in the
branches, because in that case a more baboon-like locomotion would be
expected (the Śbaboon paradoxą).
Most of Bramble and Liebermanąs Śadaptationsą are not what we would expect
in a cursorial (running) animal. For example, their list includes łenlarged
posterior and anterior semicircular canals˛, but there are no comparisons
with, for instance, giraffes (heads high above the ground), gibbons (fast
and versatile locomotion), kangaroos (cursorial bipeds), or swimming or
diving species. It is conceivable in fact that the frequent change of
posture seen when diving for seafood (descending and ascending) required a
different labyrinth structure, and that the larger Homo erectus labyrinth
was adapted to terrestrial walking and running as well as to wading,
swimming and diving locomotions.
There is no indication that an łexpanded venous circulation of neurocranium˛
had anything to do with thermoregulation, but there is long-standing
evidence of expanded venous networks in diving species (Slijper 1936).
More balanced heads and short snouts are not seen in cursorial species,
whether bi- or quadrupedal, and low shoulders are to be expected in wading
and underwater swimming.
What Bramble and Lieberman refer to as łnarrow body form˛, łnarrow thorax˛
and łnarrow pelvis˛ is not clear to us: compared to most primates, humans
have a relatively broad thorax and pelvis (laterolaterally), and this was
even more so in the case of australopithecines. In our opinion, the
combination of Śflaredą iliac blades and long and relatively horizontal
femoral necks as seen in Homo erectus indicates well-developed ad- and
abduction, which is obviously not an adaptation for running, but would not
be unexpected and indeed would be advantageous for a species that had to
regularly wade, tread water, swim or climb. In Homo sapiens the pelvis
(bi-iliac diameter) did become narrower and the femoral necks shorter and
more vertical, and we agree with Bramble and Lieberman that this could be
related to more frequent terrestrial locomotion.
Plantar arches, enlarged tubera calcanei, close-packed calcaneo-cuboid
joints and short toes are not seen in cursorials, whether bi- or quadruped,
to the contrary: running species are typically unguli- or digiti-, not
plantigrade, and typically have elongated toes.
In conclusion, comparative data suggest that none of the features described
by Bramble and Lieberman (2004) are typical either of savannah dwellers or
frequently running animals, whether slow or fast. Until the features are
considered in the context of swimming and wading as well as terrestrial
movement, their interpretations should be considered with extreme caution.
As it is, there is no obvious reason why any of the features cited could not
have been of advantage in a littoral environment. We do not deny that
humans today are adapted to terrestrial locomotion including walking and
moderate running, but in our opinion the peculiar human anatomy is not
directly derivable from a typical primate ancestor who moved from closed to
more open, arid habitats.
At least two conspicuous anatomical features of Homo erectus are notably not
included in the list of features cited by Bramble and Lieberman (2004).
1) Homo erectus typically has a more robust, and therefore heavier,
skeleton than all other (fossil and extant) primates, including H. sapiens
and the other apes. One of its defining characteristics is the shape and
size of the femoral bone, which shows cortex thickening and densening
(pachyostosis) and a narrow cavity of the bone marrow (medullary stenosis).
The cranial bones, especially the posterior part (the occiput), are also
notably thicker than in other primates including H. sapiens. Unusually heavy
bones would be a disadvantage for a species relying on endurance running,
and are not seen in running mammals such as dogs or horses, whereas for a
species collecting sessile food from the waterąs edge, including underwater
foraging, they could have been a significant advantage. Human divers such as
the Ama of Korea frequently use weights to help them descend (Hong and Rahn
1967). Slow-diving mammals for sessile foods typically have medullary
stenosis and pachyostosis to a higher degree than in H. erectus (walruses,
dugongs and fossil littoral species such as Kolponomos, Odobenocetops and
some Thalassocnus species), while fast-diving mammals for mobile prey have
light-weight bones (dolphins and sealions).
2) Archaic Homo had a lower and longer brain skull than H. sapiens, with
generally less flexed cranial base and with the eyes somewhat more in front
of the brain (requiring a supraorbital torus for eye protection) rather than
fully below the frontal brain as in H. sapiens, meaning that the eyes would
have been more naturally oriented towards the sky if they were standing with
an upright posture, rather than directed more towards the horizon as is the
case when H. sapiens stands upright. This would be a disadvantage for a
species relying on endurance running because, among other things, more
energy would be needed to look at where the feet were making contact with
the ground. In a diving position, as well as in a more procumbent body
position while wading for food, for example, this would have resulted in the
eyes being more naturally oriented in the direction the individual was
moving (i.e., in the case of swimming and diving, head first through the
water). We are not aware of any models that suggest early Homo ran with a
bent hip posture, but we do note that human sprinters generally run with the
body leaning forward.
Within many contemporary H. sapiens populations there are individuals who
are capable of long distance running, but compared to typical savannah
species, humans are slow and inefficient (Figure 4). Moreover, recent
research suggests that endurance training in athletes sometimes causes
cardial arrhythmias and sudden death (Ector et al. 2007). Even Bramble and
Lieberman (2004) admit that łhumans are mediocre runners in several
respects˛ and łrunning is more costly for humans than for most other
mammals˛. And since H. erectus generally had, for instance, heavier bones
than H sapiens and longer femoral necks, it must have been an even less
efficient cursorial than extant H. sapiens.
Lee Olsen
> you think so
"Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
behavior in fossil taxa.
However, to date only external linear dimensions
have been included in such analyses of early hominins. In this study,
cross-sectional measures
of femoral and humeral diaphyseal strength
are determined for the two most complete early Homo erectus (or
ergaster) associated skeletons
the juvenile KNM-WT 15000 and the adult
KNM-ER 1808. Modern comparative samples include an adult human
skeletal sample representative
of diverse body shapes, a human longitudinal
growth series, and an adult chimpanzee sample. When compared to
appropriately age-matched
samples, both H. erectus specimens fall
very close to modern human mean proportions and far from chimpanzee
proportions (which do
not overlap with those of humans). This implies
very similar mechanical load-sharing between the lower and upper
limbs, and by implication, similar
locomotor behavior in early H. erectus and
modern humans. Thus, by the earliest Pleistocene (1.7 Ma), completely
modern patterns of bipedal
behavior were fully established in at least one
early hominin taxon (Ruff 2008)."
Christopher Ruff 2008
Femoral/humeral strength in early African Homo erectus
Journal of Human Evolution 54, Pages 383-390
"Previous studies have differed in expectations about whether long
limbs should increase or decrease the energetic cost of locomotion. It
has
recently been shown that relatively longer lower limbs (relative to
body mass) reduce the energetic cost of human walking. Here we report
on
whether a relationship exists between limb length and cost of human
running. Subjects whose measured lower-limb lengths were relatively
long
or short for their mass (as judged by deviations from predicted values
based on a regression of lower-limb length on body mass) were
selected.
Eighteen human subjects rested in a seated position and ran on a
treadmill at 2.68 m s 1 while their expired gases were collected and
analyzed;
stride length was determined from videotapes. We found significant
negative relationships between relative lower-limb length and two
measures
of cost. The partial correlation between net cost of transport and
lower-limb length controlling for body mass was r = -0.69 ( p =
0.002). The
partial correlation between the gross cost of locomotion at 2.68 m s 1
and lower-limb length controlling for body mass was r = -0.61
( p = 0.009). Thus, subjects with relatively longer lower limbs tend
to have lower locomotor costs than those with relatively shorter lower
limbs,
similar to the results found for human walking. Contrary to general
expectation, a linear relationship between stride length and lower-
limb length
was not found."
Karen L. Steudel-Numbers 2007
The evolution of human running: Effects of changes in lower-limb
length on locomotor economy
Journal of Human Evolution Vol. 53(2), Pages 191-196
>
> > probably approaching the strength of a chimp.
>
> unproven assertion, which no doubt is completely false
>
> > And they were faster runners than us too
>
> ridiculous :
>
> Bramble and Lieberman (2004), in a much-discussed review article in Nature,
> cite a number of derived Homo features they claim to be adaptations for more
> efficient endurance running in arid, open habitats. However, while some of
> these supposedly Œcursorial adaptations¹ appear first in the fossil record
> in H. habilis, others appear first in H. erectus, and others still in H.
> sapiens, suggesting a much more complex story than proposed by Bramble and
> Lieberman. Their conclusions are reached without systematic comparisons
> with other animals (including endurance runners) and with general
> comparisons restricted to fossil hominids and Pan. Since convergent traits
> are strong indicators of evolution in similar environments (Bender 1999), a
> systematic comparison with a broad range of animals with a variety of
> locomotor strategies would have been more informative.
> In addition, discussion of possible locomotion styles is restricted to
> walking and running, with no consideration at all given to activities such
> as wading, swimming or underwater foraging, yet humans are regular waders
> and more accomplished swimmers and divers than other primates. Most of the
> list¹s Œadaptations¹ for walking could just as easily be explained by
> wading. One of the frequent Œexplanations¹ in the list is ³stress
> reduction², a reference to the vertical posture of humans with the weight
> resting on two legs. But this says nothing about endurance running, with
> standing, wading, walking or short distance running all using a similar
> posture, and therefore all requiring stress reduction. Other Œexplanations¹
> include ³counter rotation², ³thermoregulation² and ³stabilization², but no
> comparative data to corroborate these interpretations are provided. In
> other words, their Œexplanations¹ are ad hoc suppositions, applied to one
> example (human ancestors) without any consideration as to whether these
> supposed adaptations are seen in other animals, which means their
> Œexplanations¹ are statistically invalid (n=1). Long legs, and possibly
> shortened forearms, could be seen as running adaptations, but these are just
> as typical of wading and swimming species compared with runners (Hildebrand
> 1974: 584, Bender 1999).
> In a waterside scenario, wading and swimming would be preadaptative to the
> humanlike Œvertical¹ locomotion that Bramble and Lieberman (2004) believe to
> be a direct adaptation to endurance running. In our view, frequent
> terrestrial locomotion, whether for walking or for (relatively slow)
> running, was more recent (Homo sapiens) and could not be derived directly
> from an ancestral locomotion in forests, whether on the ground or in the
> branches, because in that case a more baboon-like locomotion would be
> expected (the Œbaboon paradox¹).
> Most of Bramble and Lieberman¹s Œadaptations¹ are not what we would expect
> in a cursorial (running) animal. For example, their list includes ³enlarged
> posterior and anterior semicircular canals², but there are no comparisons
> with, for instance, giraffes (heads high above the ground), gibbons (fast
> and versatile locomotion), kangaroos (cursorial bipeds), or swimming or
> diving species. It is conceivable in fact that the frequent change of
> posture seen when diving for seafood (descending and ascending) required a
> different labyrinth structure, and that the larger Homo erectus labyrinth
> was adapted to terrestrial walking and running as well as to wading,
> swimming and diving locomotions.
> There is no indication that an ³expanded venous circulation of neurocranium²
> had anything to do with thermoregulation, but there is long-standing
> evidence of expanded venous networks in diving species (Slijper 1936).
> More balanced heads and short snouts are not seen in cursorial species,
> whether bi- or quadrupedal, and low shoulders are to be expected in wading
> and underwater swimming.
> What Bramble and Lieberman refer to as ³narrow body form², ³narrow thorax²
> and ³narrow pelvis² is not clear to us: compared to most primates, humans
> have a relatively broad thorax and pelvis (laterolaterally), and this was
> even more so in the case of australopithecines. In our opinion, the
> combination of Œflared¹ iliac blades and long and relatively horizontal
> species collecting sessile food from the water¹s edge, including underwater
> Lieberman (2004) admit that ³humans are mediocre runners in several
> respects² and ³running is more costly for humans than for most other
Marc Verhaegen
> "Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
> behavior in fossil taxa.
In Hs, yes, there are some correlations, but this says 0 about non-humans:
Lee Olsen
> SF:
>
> > "Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
> > behavior in fossil taxa.
>
> In Hs, yes, there are some correlations, but this says 0 about non-humans:
I think the topic
is about humans.
Marc Verhaegen
Rick Wagler
"Marc Verhaegen" <m_ver...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C5BB6061.16D94%m_ver...@skynet.be...
> SF:
>> "Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
>> behavior in fossil taxa.
>
> In Hs, yes, there are some correlations, but this says 0 about non-humans:
>
earth do you think only modern and decidedly non-fossil
sapiens is being referred to? And if you say that this method
of determining locomotor behavior does not apply to erectus
you have to say why. A simple blanket denial is worthless
in terms of supporting your position.
Just trying to be helpful....
Rick Wagler
Marc Verhaegen
SF:
>>> "Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
>>> behavior
in Hs
>>> in fossil taxa.
no
>> In Hs, yes, there are some correlations, but this says 0 about non-humans:
> The phrase is "fossil taxa" which is a plural form.
iow: wrong
Lee Olsen
On Feb 9, 11:54 am, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
Message-ID: <C5B64889.16C2B%m_ver...@skynet.be>
> yes SFs believe that bipedal ostriches & kangaroos carry loads ...
Message-ID: <C55B8C77.15512%m_ver...@skynet.be>
> The earliest chimp teeth found were in a savanna/rift context at about
> 300 (kya)
Marc Verhaegin: "nonsense"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04008.html
TREE 2002 Page 213-14:
"... capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris and
mountain-beavers Aplodontia rufa [24]. Both these
semi-aquatic rodents feed mainly on riverside herbs,
grasses and the bark of young trees."
IOW, amateur WL doesn't know what he is talking about.
RichTravsky
You've admitted humans are savanna adapted. Want me to post the link of you writing
that?
Again?
Marc Verhaegen
SF still confuses all & some:
> You've admitted humans are savanna adapted.
childish liar
Lee Olsen
> still confuses all & some:
FYI:
Play Ball: an article by Elizabeth M. Donohue, cited from Vision
Research 45:2129-35, 20.
Kids given grid movement tests "readily assess the speed of faster-
moving
objects than that of slower ones."
Leading to the conclusion "being better at noticing speed than
noticing slowness was a usefull bit of evolution for the human race,
making
it easier for our ancestors to close in on a four-legged dinner
sprinting across the
savannah."
Natural History July/August 2005:14
Abstract
"Lower-to-upper limb-bone proportions give valuable clues to locomotor
behavior in fossil taxa. However, to date only external linear
dimensions
have been included in such analyses of early hominins. In this study,
cross-sectional measures of femoral and humeral diaphyseal strength
are determined for the two most complete early Homo erectus (or
ergaster) associated skeletons the juvenile KNM-WT 15000 and the adult
KNM-ER 1808. Modern comparative samples include an adult human
skeletal sample representative of diverse body shapes, a human
longitudinal
growth series, and an adult chimpanzee sample. When compared to
appropriately age-matched samples, both H. erectus specimens fall
very close to modern human mean proportions and far from chimpanzee
proportions (which do not overlap with those of humans). This implies
very similar mechanical load-sharing between the lower and upper
limbs, and by implication, similar locomotor behavior in early H.
erectus and
modern humans. Thus, by the earliest Pleistocene (1.7 Ma), completely
modern patterns of bipedal behavior were fully established in at least
one
early hominin taxon."
Christopher Ruff 2008
Femoral/humeral strength in early African Homo erectus
Journal of Human Evolution 54. pp 383-390
Marc Verhaegen
Op 23-02-2009 19:48, in artikel
01752791-2e22-4cab...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Lee Olsen
> SFs believe they can extrapolate data on Hs to other hominids:
Here is the wetloon that tells us all about how sealions sweat!
Try not to be silly please.
RichTravsky
AFs believe they can extrapolate data on sealions to humans.
RichTravsky
Childish liar. Here are your own words
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/a8f7ca1c31d823b0?dmode=source&hl=en
...
From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204...@skynet.be>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo
...
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 18:40:26 +0200
...
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E90F371...@hotMOVEmail.com...
...
>>>> Your arborealism can't explain our ext.nose, our furlessness, SC fat etc.
>>> Neither can you. Especially since you admitted bushmen are savannah adapted.
> > "admitted"?? :-D What else IYO??
> Yes, you admitted it. Are you denying it now?
Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
...
Marc Verhaegen
Op 02-03-2009 05:37, in artikel 49AB6278...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen
Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Carnivora : Otariidae)
LS Rotherham, M van der Merwe, MN Bester & WH Oosthuizen 2005
Austr.J.Zool.53:295300
the only mammals that abundantly sweat thermoactively are humans & sealions
& some imbecile says : it can't be convergence:
>> Here is the wetloon that tells us all about how sealions sweat!
> AFs believe they can extrapolate data on sealions to humans.
mclark
"A simple blanket denial is worthless
in terms of supporting your position."
And his attempts at being helpful are
clearly wasted.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"You only read what you like to read."
Marco --01/01/03
RichTravsky
>
> SF still too stupid to know the difference between some & all:
Just like a few humans can dive deeP?
RichTravsky
AF believes sealions are bipedal.