branch feeding = bipedal?
Charles
The question is whether or not standing up on a branch could have caused
early hominids to become obligate bipedal.
Not if a bonobo with an erection will display bipedally.
Merely by looking at the proposed weights of the apiths (chart pasted in
below), it seems that they may have been too heavy to be supported by
limbs, or to walk around on limbs without breaking the branch. Most
fruit grows on the outer portions of the branch, closer to the leaves
and canopy. I think the 112 pound a. anamensis male would have been too
heavy to forage for fruit on the outer limbs, so this creature must have
been largely terrestrial; certainly not primarily arboreal.
In other words, not only was he now bipedal, he also was largely
excluded from the life in the trees. Whatever advantage he may have had
walking on limbs bipedally must have disappeared as he became obligate
bipedal.
regards,
charles
Charles wrote:
>
> Rich Travsky wrote:
> >
> > Pauline M Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:31:33 -0700, Rich Travsky
> > > <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >" A second recent finding is that Bwindi chimpanzees are more
bipedal in
> > > > posture, at least when feeding in trees, than other documented
chimpanzee
> > > > populations. During May, 2001, while feeding in Ficus sp., the
Ruhija
> > > > chimpanzees foraged in the tree bipedally (standing on the
largest terminal
> > > > branches) more often in a ten day period than other studies have
recorded in a
> > > > year or more."
> > >
> > > Note the phrases "bipedal in posture" and "standing on". In other
> >
> > Going out on a branch requires adjustment of balance, more so when
pulling
> > something off a branch.
> >
> > > words, not bipedal locomotion. Also, your short quote doesn't say
so,
> > > but it's very likely the chimps were using one hand (at least
partly)
> >
> > If you're gathering fruit you hold some with one arm and reach for
more
> > with the other. And they don't necessarily eat it all in one spot,
so they'll
> > move. Foraging is not a passive exercise. And the behavior is in
line
> > with ground based bipedal instances.
> >
>
> I like this paragraph about foraging for fruit. It should be it's own
> thread...
Take a look at
http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo13.jpg
and
http://www.psc.uc.edu/hs/HS_Bonobo06.jpg
Illustrative of carrying.
> I am looking at the map supplement from The National
Geographic called
> "Dawn of Humans" (1997). they are using Henry McHenry's data from the
> Univ of Calif at Davis.... In the section under "earliest hominids"
it
> states that apiths ranged in size like this:
> rearranged quote>
> female afarensis = 3ft. 5 in. 64 lbs
> female africanus = 3ft. 9 in. 66 lbs
> female anamensis = 4ft. 3 in. 73 lbs
>
> male afarensis = 4ft. 11 in. 99 lbs
> male africanus = 4ft. 6 in. 90 lbs
> male anamensis = 5ft. 1 in. 112 lbs
> <endquote
> While I can easily imagine a 64 pound animal out on a limb, I
am
> beginning to have trouble with a 112 pound animal doing the same
thing.
> This is the size of one of my daughters (and from the trivia file, a
> female usually reaches 110 pounds before beginning to menstruate.)
Can
> you postulate any social theory related to this? Some lazy guy, too
> heavy to "go out on a limb" being brought food by his mate?
Marc Verhaegen
"Charles" <lmnoN...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3E63D916...@mindspring.com...
> The question is whether or not standing up on a branch could have caused
early hominids to become obligate bipedal. Not if a bonobo with an erection
will display bipedally.
Yes, baboons display in a sitting position.
> Merely by looking at the proposed weights of the apiths (chart pasted in
below), it seems that they may have been too heavy to be supported by limbs,
or to walk around on limbs without breaking the branch. Most fruit grows on
the outer portions of the branch, closer to the leaves and canopy. I think
the 112 pound a. anamensis male would have been too heavy to forage for
fruit on the outer limbs, so this creature must have been largely
terrestrial; certainly not primarily arboreal.
Yes, the large size of Afr.apes is a strong argument against a purely
arboreal past of hominids, as is their tail loss. Ground-dwelling is a
theoretically possible answer, but then we would expect more pronogrady &
quadrupedality (cf.macaques & baboons vs. colobines), and it would not
explain tail loss nor the evolution of below branch locomotion.
> In other words, not only was he now bipedal, he also was largely excluded
from the life in the trees. Whatever advantage he may have had walking on
limbs bipedally must have disappeared as he became obligate bipedal.
regards, charles
Marc Verhaegen
http://www.onelist.com/community/AAT
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Verhaegen.html
Rich Travsky
>
> "Charles" <lmnoN...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3E63D916...@mindspring.com...
>
> > The question is whether or not standing up on a branch could have caused
> early hominids to become obligate bipedal. Not if a bonobo with an erection
> will display bipedally.
>
> Yes, baboons display in a sitting position.
>
> > Merely by looking at the proposed weights of the apiths (chart pasted in
> below), it seems that they may have been too heavy to be supported by limbs,
> or to walk around on limbs without breaking the branch. Most fruit grows on
> the outer portions of the branch, closer to the leaves and canopy. I think
> the 112 pound a. anamensis male would have been too heavy to forage for
> fruit on the outer limbs, so this creature must have been largely
> terrestrial; certainly not primarily arboreal.
>
> Yes, the large size of Afr.apes is a strong argument against a purely
> arboreal past of hominids, as is their tail loss. Ground-dwelling is a
> theoretically possible answer, but then we would expect more pronogrady &
> quadrupedality (cf.macaques & baboons vs. colobines), and it would not
> explain tail loss nor the evolution of below branch locomotion.
Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show arboreal
adaptations?
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E7914F5...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show arboreal
adaptations?
The idiot is talking. He says 3 things:
1) Terra boreal. The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree.
Ok?
2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But they have no
SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see the
difference between a human & a monkey?
2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E7914F5...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show arboreal
> adaptations?
>
> The idiot is talking. He says 3 things:
The idiot is responding...
> 1) Terra boreal. The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree.
> Ok?
Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize the
terra part.
> 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But they have no
You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong argument against
a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate rather well,
you know.
> SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see the
> difference between a human & a monkey?
I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do with
being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
> 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
No answer...
> Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions, then
so could early hominids.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show
arboreal adaptations?
> > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things:
> The idiot is responding...
> > 1) Terra boreal. The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin
arbor=tree. Ok?
> Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize the
terra part.
You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
> > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But they have
no
> You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong argument
against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate rather
well, you know.
Yes, we were arboreal. So?
> > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see the
difference between a human & a monkey?
> I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do with being
able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
That's what I'm saying, man!
> > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> No answer...
Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by this? Rephrase.
> > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
> If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions, then so
could early hominids.
No, man. Think a bit. Human are more dependent on water than other primates.
This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E7E8299...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show
> arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things:
>
> > The idiot is responding...
>
> > > 1) Terra boreal. The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin
> arbor=tree. Ok?
>
> > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize the
> terra part.
>
> You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal
Is that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
> > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But they have
> no
>
> > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong argument
> against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate rather
> well, you know.
>
> Yes, we were arboreal. So?
Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
> > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see the
> difference between a human & a monkey?
>
> > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do with being
> able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
>
> That's what I'm saying, man!
Then why do you cite it?
> > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > No answer...
>
> Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by this? Rephrase.
It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do NOT
show arboreal adaptations?
> > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
>
> > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions, then so
> could early hominids.
>
> No, man. Think a bit. Human are more dependent on water than other primates.
> This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that environment.
This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
Unless you're claiming bushmen aren't human...
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show
arboreal adaptations?
> > > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things: 1) Terra boreal. The man
means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree. Ok?
> > > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize the
terra part.
> > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
> You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is that aqu
arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
You say "terra boreal". I ask: what has "boreal" to do with what we're
discussing?? Never heard the word "boreal"??
> > > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But they
have no
> > > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong
argument against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate
rather well, you know.
> > Yes, we were arboreal. So?
> Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
Easy to follow for just-so believers like you perhaps? Again. Arboreal
mammals are generally much smaller than terrestrial ones & certainly than
aquatic ones. You can't explain why of all primates hominids-pongids became
so large, IOW, you can't explain why they differ from monkeys, i.c. why they
got much bigger than monkeys.
> > > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see the
difference between a human & a monkey?
> > > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do with
being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
> > That's what I'm saying, man!
> Then why do you cite it?
Your arborealism can't explain our ext.nose, our furlessness, SC fat etc.
> > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > No answer...
> > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by this?
Rephrase.
> It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do NOT show
arboreal adaptations?
No. Your point??
> > > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
> > > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions, then
so could early hominids.
> > No, man. Think a bit. Human are more dependent on water than other
primates. This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
> No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that
environment.
Yes, but I'm not equating sapiens LCA = bushmen. Only idiots do.
> This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
No! Are you a bushman?
I'll try again. The man is not very clever. I'm saying that bushmen 200 ka
or so, at the time of the sapiens LCA, had waterside, probably coastal,
ancestors. It their & our LCA would have lived where they live now, they
would have been less dependent on water than most humans are, they would
have had less SC fat (but possibly more steatopygy), they would have had
sodium & water sparing cooling systems etc. etc.
Probably you also believe the Austr.aboriginals had savanna ancestors at the
time?? Still not heard of their eel-farming only 8000 ka?? Eels in your
savanna??
pete
> You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=boreal
--
pete
Marc Verhaegen
"pete" <pfi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3E82EB...@mindspring.com...
> > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=boreal -- pete
:-) Yes, thanks, Pete, I do know what "boreal" is, I only don't understand
why the man brings it up & what it has to do with apiths.
Marc
Michael Clark
"Marc Verhaegen" <fa20...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e8372d3$0$20831$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
<insert>
> > > 1) Terra boreal. The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin
> arbor=tree. Ok?
>
> > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize the
> terra part.
>
> You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal
Is that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
<end insert>
Remember now?
> Marc
Marc Verhaegen
"Michael Clark" <bit...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:v878cj9...@corp.supernews.com...
I didn't say that, idiot.
Michael Clark
What I can't figure out is why anyone would give
a shred of credibility to this doofus. Yet there they
are, engaging MV like his opinion meant something.
For them, a brain is a waste. Marching in lockstep,
a simple spinal cord would suffice (thanks AE).
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E8144FC...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > > > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show
> arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things: 1) Terra boreal. The man
> means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree. Ok?
>
> > > > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize the
> terra part.
>
> > > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
>
> > You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is that aqu
> arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
>
> You say "terra boreal". I ask: what has "boreal" to do with what we're
> discussing?? Never heard the word "boreal"??
boreal is a real word.
Now, back to my question:
I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is that aqu
arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
> > > > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But they
> have no
>
> > > > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong
> argument against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate
> rather well, you know.
>
> > > Yes, we were arboreal. So?
>
> > Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
>
> Easy to follow for just-so believers like you perhaps? Again. Arboreal
> mammals are generally much smaller than terrestrial ones & certainly than
> aquatic ones. You can't explain why of all primates hominids-pongids became
> so large, IOW, you can't explain why they differ from monkeys, i.c. why they
> got much bigger than monkeys.
It's easy enough to follow that water and wading has nothing to do with
it (are there lots of bodies of water in trees? No.).
> > > > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see the
> difference between a human & a monkey?
>
> > > > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do with
> being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
>
> > > That's what I'm saying, man!
>
> > Then why do you cite it?
>
> Your arborealism can't explain our ext.nose, our furlessness, SC fat etc.
Neither can you. Especially since you admitted bushmen are savannah
adapted.
> > > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > No answer...
>
> > > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by this?
> Rephrase.
>
> > It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do NOT show
> arboreal adaptations?
>
> No. Your point??
Easy to follow. They had arboreal adaptions because they had been more
arboreal in their past, oki doki?
> > > > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
>
> > > > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions, then
> so could early hominids.
>
> > > No, man. Think a bit. Human are more dependent on water than other
> primates. This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
>
> > No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that
> environment.
>
> Yes, but I'm not equating sapiens LCA = bushmen. Only idiots do.
Only idiots deny the the possibility that if homo sapiens can be
savannah adapted then the LCA could too.
> > This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
>
> No! Are you a bushman?
Yes!
> I'll try again. The man is not very clever. I'm saying that bushmen 200 ka
> or so, at the time of the sapiens LCA, had waterside, probably coastal,
> ancestors. It their & our LCA would have lived where they live now, they
Coastal bushmen? Cite?
> would have been less dependent on water than most humans are, they would
> have had less SC fat (but possibly more steatopygy), they would have had
> sodium & water sparing cooling systems etc. etc.
And absolutely nothing there denies the possiblity that even earlier homo
ancestors could've accomplished such an adaptation.
> Probably you also believe the Austr.aboriginals had savanna ancestors at the
> time?? Still not heard of their eel-farming only 8000 ka?? Eels in your
> savanna??
Was eel farming done ALLLLLLL over Australia? Nope. Not even a good try on
your part.
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show
arboreal adaptations?
> > > > > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things: 1) Terra boreal. The
man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree. Ok?
> > > > > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize
the terra part.
> > > > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
> > > You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is that
aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
> > You say "terra boreal". I ask: what has "boreal" to do with what we're
discussing?? Never heard the word "boreal"??
> boreal is a real word.
Yes, that's my point. You do know the meaning of it?? Why on earth do you
bring "boreal" in??
> Now, back to my question: I'm following your convention: aquarboreal
Is that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
Never heard the word "arboreal"?? ever heard the word "rboreal"???
> > > > > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But
they have no
> > > > > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong
argument against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate
rather well, you know.
> > > > Yes, we were arboreal. So?
> > > Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
> > Easy to follow for just-so believers like you perhaps? Again. Arboreal
mammals are generally much smaller than terrestrial ones & certainly than
aquatic ones. You can't explain why of all primates hominids-pongids became
so large, IOW, you can't explain why they differ from monkeys, i.c. why they
got much bigger than monkeys.
> It's easy enough to follow that water and wading has nothing to do with it
(are there lots of bodies of water in trees? No.).
You're crazy. Never heard of forest swamps?? mangrove swamps?? flooded
Amazone forest?? Instead of raving, give me 1 argument why you believe early
hominids could not have lived in forest swamps. 1 single argument.
> > > > > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see
the difference between a human & a monkey?
> > > > > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do
with being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
> > > > That's what I'm saying, man!
> > > Then why do you cite it?
> > 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??
> > > > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > > No answer...
> > > > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by this?
Rephrase.
> > > It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do NOT
show arboreal adaptations?
> > No. Your point??
> Easy to follow. They had arboreal adaptions because they had been more
arboreal in their past, oki doki?
You're not following. You can't explain why they became much larger than
monkeys. Not for a purely arboreal life. You can't explain why they lost the
tail.
> > > > > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
> > > > > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions,
then so could early hominids.
> > > > No, man. Think a bit. Human are more dependent on water than other
primates. This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
> > > No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that
environment.
> > Yes, but I'm not equating sapiens LCA = bushmen. Only idiots do.
> Only idiots deny the the possibility that if homo sapiens can be savannah
adapted then the LCA could too.
Only idiots equat Bushmen = sapiens LCA.
> > > This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
> > No! Are you a bushman?
> Yes!
Good. Stay in your savanna.
> > I'll try again. The man is not very clever. I'm saying that bushmen 200
ka or so, at the time of the sapiens LCA, had waterside, probably coastal,
ancestors. It their & our LCA would have lived where they live now, they
> Coastal bushmen? Cite?
You're crazy.
> > would have been less dependent on water than most humans are, they would
have had less SC fat (but possibly more steatopygy), they would have had
sodium & water sparing cooling systems etc. etc.
> And absolutely nothing there denies the possiblity that even earlier homo
ancestors could've accomplished such an adaptation.
Still not following? If the sapiens LCA were adapted to the savanna, humans
would have been less dependent on water & sodium. Your savanna nonsense
can't explain why humans sweat, have 10 times more SC fat than chimps, etc.
> > Probably you also believe the Austr.aboriginals had savanna ancestors at
the time?? Still not heard of their eel-farming only 8000 ka?? Eels in your
savanna??
> Was eel farming done ALLLLLLL over Australia? Nope. Not even a good try on
your part.
Too stupid to follow the argument? I'm arguing that the present-day savanna
adaptations of Austr.aboriginals & Bushmen are recent. Post sapiens LCA. As
derived as Eskimo adaptations. Nobody except you doubts humans do not
descend from polar ancestors.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E87BC61...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > > > > > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT show
> arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things: 1) Terra boreal. The
> man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree. Ok?
>
> > > > > > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to emphasize
> the terra part.
>
> > > > > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
>
> > > > You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is that
> aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
>
> > > You say "terra boreal". I ask: what has "boreal" to do with what we're
> discussing?? Never heard the word "boreal"??
>
> > boreal is a real word.
>
> Yes, that's my point. You do know the meaning of it?? Why on earth do you
> bring "boreal" in??
Because you do.
> > Now, back to my question: I'm following your convention: aquarboreal
> Is that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
>
> Never heard the word "arboreal"?? ever heard the word "rboreal"???
You tell us. Parse aquarboreal for us...
> > > > > > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adpations. But
> they have no
>
> > > > > > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong
> argument against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate
> rather well, you know.
>
> > > > > Yes, we were arboreal. So?
>
> > > > Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
>
> > > Easy to follow for just-so believers like you perhaps? Again. Arboreal
> mammals are generally much smaller than terrestrial ones & certainly than
> aquatic ones. You can't explain why of all primates hominids-pongids became
> so large, IOW, you can't explain why they differ from monkeys, i.c. why they
> got much bigger than monkeys.
Neither can you.
> > It's easy enough to follow that water and wading has nothing to do with it
> (are there lots of bodies of water in trees? No.).
>
> You're crazy. Never heard of forest swamps?? mangrove swamps?? flooded
> Amazone forest?? Instead of raving, give me 1 argument why you believe early
> hominids could not have lived in forest swamps. 1 single argument.
Hominid remains range over a large part of Africa. This shows adaptability
to a number of different environments. A forest swamp would merely have been
one of them. There is nothing to suggest that drove bipedalism.
> > > > > > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you see
> the difference between a human & a monkey?
>
> > > > > > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to do
> with being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
>
> > > > > That's what I'm saying, man!
>
> > > > Then why do you cite it?
>
> > > 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?
> > > > > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > No answer...
>
> > > > > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by this?
> Rephrase.
>
> > > > It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do NOT
> show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > No. Your point??
>
> > Easy to follow. They had arboreal adaptions because they had been more
> arboreal in their past, oki doki?
>
> You're not following. You can't explain why they became much larger than
> monkeys. Not for a purely arboreal life. You can't explain why they lost the
> tail.
Following? I'm leading. Chimps and gorillas lost their tail as well, yet
they're not bipedal. And they're large, but not bipedal. Hence, these
are irrelevant.
> > > > > > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African savanna.
>
> > > > > > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your conditions,
> then so could early hominids.
>
> > > > > No, man. Think a bit. Human are more dependent on water than other
> primates. This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
>
> > > > No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that
> environment.
>
> > > Yes, but I'm not equating sapiens LCA = bushmen. Only idiots do.
>
> > Only idiots deny the the possibility that if homo sapiens can be savannah
> adapted then the LCA could too.
>
> Only idiots equat Bushmen = sapiens LCA.
No one said that. Only you trying to escape your contradiction.
Read carefully this time:
If homo sapiens can be savannah adapted then the LCA could too.
> > > > This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
>
> > > No! Are you a bushman?
>
> > Yes!
>
> Good. Stay in your savanna.
And so are you. You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens. Directly contradicting
your assertion "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals".
> > > I'll try again. The man is not very clever. I'm saying that bushmen 200
> ka or so, at the time of the sapiens LCA, had waterside, probably coastal,
> ancestors. It their & our LCA would have lived where they live now, they
>
> > Coastal bushmen? Cite?
>
> You're crazy.
No answer.
> > > would have been less dependent on water than most humans are, they would
> have had less SC fat (but possibly more steatopygy), they would have had
> sodium & water sparing cooling systems etc. etc.
>
> > And absolutely nothing there denies the possiblity that even earlier homo
> ancestors could've accomplished such an adaptation.
>
> Still not following? If the sapiens LCA were adapted to the savanna, humans
> would have been less dependent on water & sodium. Your savanna nonsense
> can't explain why humans sweat, have 10 times more SC fat than chimps, etc.
Then explain bushmen.
> > > Probably you also believe the Austr.aboriginals had savanna ancestors at
> the time?? Still not heard of their eel-farming only 8000 ka?? Eels in your
> savanna??
>
> > Was eel farming done ALLLLLLL over Australia? Nope. Not even a good try on
> your part.
>
> Too stupid to follow the argument? I'm arguing that the present-day savanna
> adaptations of Austr.aboriginals & Bushmen are recent. Post sapiens LCA. As
> derived as Eskimo adaptations. Nobody except you doubts humans do not
> descend from polar ancestors.
Recent? but "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals"....
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT
show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > > > > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things: 1) Terra boreal.
The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree. Ok?
> > > > > > > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to
emphasize the terra part.
> > > > > > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
> > > > > You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is
that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
> > > > You say "terra boreal". I ask: what has "boreal" to do with what
we're discussing?? Never heard the word "boreal"??
> > > boreal is a real word.
> > Yes, that's my point. You do know the meaning of it?? Why on earth do
you bring "boreal" in??
> Because you do.
I did not, idiot. You did. Just look above.
> > > Now, back to my question: I'm following your convention: aquarboreal
Is that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
> > Never heard the word "arboreal"?? ever heard the word "rboreal"???
> You tell us. Parse aquarboreal for us...
Can't you??? For the Xth time: aqua=water arbor=tree. Never heard the word
"arboreal"?? Ever heard the word "primate"?? What do you know?? (BTW, this
beautiful & clear term comes from Marcel Williams.)
> > > > > > > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > > > > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adaptations.
But they have no
> > > > > > > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong
argument against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate
rather well, you know.
> > > > > > Yes, we were arboreal. So?
> > > > > Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
> > > > Easy to follow for just-so believers like you perhaps? Again.
Arboreal mammals are generally much smaller than terrestrial ones &
certainly than aquatic ones. You can't explain why of all primates
hominids-pongids became so large, IOW, you can't explain why they differ
from monkeys, i.c. why they got much bigger than monkeys.
> Neither can you.
We can, as you should have known if you had followed a bit.
> > > It's easy enough to follow that water and wading has nothing to do
with it (are there lots of bodies of water in trees? No.).
> > You're crazy. Never heard of forest swamps?? mangrove swamps?? flooded
Amazone forest?? Instead of raving, give me 1 argument why you believe early
hominids could not have lived in forest swamps. 1 single argument.
> Hominid remains range over a large part of Africa.
Apiths, you mean? Yes, of course, but why do you believe they had no
aquarboreal ancestors?
> This shows adaptability to a number of different environments.
No, it does not. In fact, ape & human physiology shows they were not adapted
to dry environments.
> A forest swamp would merely have been one of them. There is nothing to
suggest that drove bipedalism.
Lowland gorillas are more bipedal in the swamp than on land. Nasalis between
mangrove trees is alwyas bipedal or swimming. On land it's bipedal (unlike
other colobines) or quadrupedal. Bonobos in water are nearly always bipedal,
on land rarely. Surprised??
> > > > > > > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you
see the difference between a human & a monkey?
> > > > > > > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to
do with being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
> > > > > > That's what I'm saying, man!
> > > > > Then why do you cite it?
> > > > 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??
> > > > > > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > > > > No answer...
> > > > > > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by
this? Rephrase.
> > > > > It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do
NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> > > > No. Your point??
> > > Easy to follow. They had arboreal adaptions because they had been more
arboreal in their past, oki doki?
> > You're not following. You can't explain why they became much larger than
monkeys. Not for a purely arboreal life. You can't explain why they lost the
tail.
> Following? I'm leading. Chimps and gorillas lost their tail as well, yet
they're not bipedal. And they're large, but not bipedal. Hence, these are
irrelevant.
Sigh. Leading?? :-D For the 100th time, we're saying that apiths, chimps,
humans & gorillas had aquarboreal ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size,
climbing arms overhead. Okidoki? Why on earth do you want to believe that
humanlike bipedalism could not have evolved form this??
> > > > > > > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African
savanna.
> > > > > > > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your
conditions, then so could early hominids.
> > > > > > No, man. Think a bit. Humans are more dependent on water than
other primates. This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
> > > > > No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that
environment.
> > > > Yes, but I'm not equating sapiens LCA = bushmen. Only idiots do.
> > > Only idiots deny the the possibility that if homo sapiens can be
savannah adapted then the LCA could too.
> > Only idiots equat Bushmen = sapiens LCA.
> No one said that. Only you trying to escape your contradiction. Read
carefully this time: If homo sapiens can be savannah adapted then the LCA
could too.
No! Re-read very carefully. Again: If the sapiens LCA had been
savanna-adapted, humans would have been less dependent on water than other
primates, but the contrary is true. Not my fault that Bushmen &
Austr.aboriginals were pushed away form richer environments by other human
populations. Most human populations still are sea- or riverside.
Archeol.evidence suggests their ancestors were waterside. Just read about
eel-farming Austr.aboriginals. And physiol.evidence proves human ancestors
were waterside: we are more, not less, dependent on water that other
primates.
> > > > > This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
> > > > No! Are you a bushman?
> > > Yes!
> > Good. Stay in your savanna.
> And so are you. You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens. Directly
contradicting your assertion "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals".
A little bit of logic, please. Bushmen belong to sapiens, sapiens does not
belong to bushmen, okidoki?
> > > > I'll try again. The man is not very clever. I'm saying that bushmen
200 ka or so, at the time of the sapiens LCA, had waterside, probably
coastal, ancestors. It their & our LCA would have lived where they live now,
they
> > > Coastal bushmen? Cite?
> > You're crazy.
> No answer.
Don't interrupt with idiocies & read further:
> > > > would have been less dependent on water than most humans are, they
would have had less SC fat (but possibly more steatopygy), they would have
had sodium & water sparing cooling systems etc. etc.
> > > And absolutely nothing there denies the possiblity that even earlier
homo ancestors could've accomplished such an adaptation.
> > Still not following? If the sapiens LCA were adapted to the savanna,
humans would have been less dependent on water & sodium. Your savanna
nonsense can't explain why humans sweat, have 10 times more SC fat than
chimps, etc.
> Then explain bushmen.
Explain Andaman. Explain Ama. Explain Kilimanjarians. Explain...
> > > > Probably you also believe the Austr.aboriginals had savanna
ancestors at the time?? Still not heard of their eel-farming only 8000 ka??
Eels in your savanna??
> > > Was eel farming done ALLLLLLL over Australia? Nope. Not even a good
try on your part.
> > Too stupid to follow the argument? I'm arguing that the present-day
savanna adaptations of Austr.aboriginals & Bushmen are recent. Post sapiens
LCA. As derived as Eskimo adaptations. Nobody except you doubts humans do
not descend from polar ancestors.
> Recent? but "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals"....
Yes, of course... Finally :-)
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E90F371...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > > Terra boreal. How many primates and early hominids do NOT
> show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > > > > The idiot is talking. He says 3 things: 1) Terra boreal.
> The man means probably "terrarboreal". Latin arbor=tree. Ok?
>
> > > > > > > > Oh, is that like aqu arboreal? I separated the pieces to
> emphasize the terra part.
>
> > > > > > > You're a crazy. What is "boreal"??
>
> > > > > > You tell us. I'm following your convention: aquarboreal Is
> that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
>
> > > > > You say "terra boreal". I ask: what has "boreal" to do with what
> we're discussing?? Never heard the word "boreal"??
>
> > > > boreal is a real word.
>
> > > Yes, that's my point. You do know the meaning of it?? Why on earth do
> you bring "boreal" in??
>
> > Because you do.
>
> I did not, idiot. You did. Just look above.
Yes, you do: aquarboreal
Parse the components for us. There's "aqua", what you have left over is
"rboreal". Or perhaps you have "arboreal", which leaves "aqu" left over.
Explain.
> > > > Now, back to my question: I'm following your convention: aquarboreal
> Is that aqu arboreal or aqua rboreal ?
>
> > > Never heard the word "arboreal"?? ever heard the word "rboreal"???
>
> > You tell us. Parse aquarboreal for us...
>
> Can't you??? For the Xth time: aqua=water arbor=tree. Never heard the word
> "arboreal"?? Ever heard the word "primate"?? What do you know?? (BTW, this
> beautiful & clear term comes from Marcel Williams.)
And you fell for it: aqua rboreal
What's "rboreal"?
> > > > > > > > > 2) How many primates do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > > > > ?? Your point? Non-human primates show arboreal adaptations.
> But they have no
>
> > > > > > > > You're the one who said "he large size of Afr.apes is a strong
> argument against a purely arboreal past of hominids". Humans can brachiate
> rather well, you know.
>
> > > > > > > Yes, we were arboreal. So?
>
> > > > > > Then perhaps so was the LCA. This is easy to follow...
>
> > > > > Easy to follow for just-so believers like you perhaps? Again.
> Arboreal mammals are generally much smaller than terrestrial ones &
> certainly than aquatic ones. You can't explain why of all primates
> hominids-pongids became so large, IOW, you can't explain why they differ
> from monkeys, i.c. why they got much bigger than monkeys.
> > Neither can you.
>
> We can, as you should have known if you had followed a bit.
You have yet to show anything that has stood up to analysis.
> > > > It's easy enough to follow that water and wading has nothing to do
> with it (are there lots of bodies of water in trees? No.).
>
> > > You're crazy. Never heard of forest swamps?? mangrove swamps?? flooded
> Amazone forest?? Instead of raving, give me 1 argument why you believe early
> hominids could not have lived in forest swamps. 1 single argument.
> > Hominid remains range over a large part of Africa.
>
> Apiths, you mean? Yes, of course, but why do you believe they had no
> aquarboreal ancestors?
What makes you think they did?
> > This shows adaptability to a number of different environments.
>
> No, it does not. In fact, ape & human physiology shows they were not adapted
> to dry environments.
Then explain bushmen.
> > A forest swamp would merely have been one of them. There is nothing to
> suggest that drove bipedalism.
>
> Lowland gorillas are more bipedal in the swamp than on land. Nasalis between
> mangrove trees is alwyas bipedal or swimming. On land it's bipedal (unlike
> other colobines) or quadrupedal. Bonobos in water are nearly always bipedal,
> on land rarely. Surprised??
Only at your lack of proof. Consult Lanting and De Waal's bonobo book, for
example, for nice pictures of bipedal behavior without a bit water around.
I believe it was a show on the Discovery channel, entitled "Apes", that
showed bipedal bonobos - without any water around.
> > > > > > > > > SC fat, are not furless, have no ext.nose, etc. I hope you
> see the difference between a human & a monkey?
>
> > > > > > > > I hope you ralize that fur, ext nose, SC fat have nothing to
> do with being able have an arboreal component to their lifestyle.
>
> > > > > > > That's what I'm saying, man!
>
> > > > > > Then why do you cite it?
>
> > > > > 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??
FINALLY. Homo sapiens are savanna adapted. Thank you.
You realize, of course, that this admission completely undercuts your
aquatic argument?
> > > > > > > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > > > No answer...
>
> > > > > > > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by
> this? Rephrase.
>
> > > > > > It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do
> NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > No. Your point??
>
> > > > Easy to follow. They had arboreal adaptions because they had been more
> arboreal in their past, oki doki?
>
> > > You're not following. You can't explain why they became much larger than
> monkeys. Not for a purely arboreal life. You can't explain why they lost the
> tail.
>
> > Following? I'm leading. Chimps and gorillas lost their tail as well, yet
> they're not bipedal. And they're large, but not bipedal. Hence, these are
> irrelevant.
>
> Sigh. Leading?? :-D For the 100th time, we're saying that apiths, chimps,
> humans & gorillas had aquarboreal ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size,
> climbing arms overhead. Okidoki? Why on earth do you want to believe that
> humanlike bipedalism could not have evolved form this??
Perhaps the lack of evidence has something to do with it...
The proboscis shows aquatic adaptations, yet has not lost its tail nor
gotten large...
> > > > > > > > > Only idiots believe early hominids ran over the African
> savanna.
>
> > > > > > > > If bushmen can do it, despite violating all of your
> conditions, then so could early hominids.
>
> > > > > > > No, man. Think a bit. Humans are more dependent on water than
> other primates. This shows the the sapiens LCA was no savanna mammal.
>
> > > > > > No, man. Think a bit. You admitted bushmen are adapted to that
> environment.
>
> > > > > Yes, but I'm not equating sapiens LCA = bushmen. Only idiots do.
>
> > > > Only idiots deny the the possibility that if homo sapiens can be
> savannah adapted then the LCA could too.
>
> > > Only idiots equat Bushmen = sapiens LCA.
>
> > No one said that. Only you trying to escape your contradiction. Read
> carefully this time: If homo sapiens can be savannah adapted then the LCA
> could too.
>
> No! Re-read very carefully. Again: If the sapiens LCA had been
No, you re-read. No one said " Bushmen = sapiens LCA".
> savanna-adapted, humans would have been less dependent on water than other
> primates, but the contrary is true. Not my fault that Bushmen &
> Austr.aboriginals were pushed away form richer environments by other human
> populations. Most human populations still are sea- or riverside.
> Archeol.evidence suggests their ancestors were waterside. Just read about
> eel-farming Austr.aboriginals. And physiol.evidence proves human ancestors
> were waterside: we are more, not less, dependent on water that other
> primates.
Bushmen prove that statement wrong. We're savanna adaptable. You've
admitted it.
> > > > > > This shows the sapiens LCA could've been a savanna mammal.
>
> > > > > No! Are you a bushman?
>
> > > > Yes!
>
> > > Good. Stay in your savanna.
>
> > And so are you. You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens. Directly
> contradicting your assertion "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals".
>
> A little bit of logic, please. Bushmen belong to sapiens, sapiens does not
> belong to bushmen, okidoki?
A little bit logic, please, no one said that. You're dodging again. I said
"You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens".
And that directly contradicts your assertion that "Humans are the opposite
of savanna mammals" because bushmen disprove that rule.
> > > > > I'll try again. The man is not very clever. I'm saying that bushmen
> 200 ka or so, at the time of the sapiens LCA, had waterside, probably
> coastal, ancestors. It their & our LCA would have lived where they live now,
> they
>
> > > > Coastal bushmen? Cite?
>
> > > You're crazy.
>
> > No answer.
>
> Don't interrupt with idiocies & read further:
Still no answer.
> > > > > would have been less dependent on water than most humans are, they
> would have had less SC fat (but possibly more steatopygy), they would have
> had sodium & water sparing cooling systems etc. etc.
>
> > > > And absolutely nothing there denies the possiblity that even earlier
> homo ancestors could've accomplished such an adaptation.
>
> > > Still not following? If the sapiens LCA were adapted to the savanna,
> humans would have been less dependent on water & sodium. Your savanna
> nonsense can't explain why humans sweat, have 10 times more SC fat than
> chimps, etc.
>
> > Then explain bushmen.
>
> Explain Andaman. Explain Ama. Explain Kilimanjarians. Explain...
Don't have to; we're talking about the savanna. You admitted bushmen are
savanna adapted. Explain how.
> > > > > Probably you also believe the Austr.aboriginals had savanna
> ancestors at the time?? Still not heard of their eel-farming only 8000 ka??
> Eels in your savanna??
>
> > > > Was eel farming done ALLLLLLL over Australia? Nope. Not even a good
> try on your part.
>
> > > Too stupid to follow the argument? I'm arguing that the present-day
> savanna adaptations of Austr.aboriginals & Bushmen are recent. Post sapiens
> LCA. As derived as Eskimo adaptations. Nobody except you doubts humans do
> not descend from polar ancestors.
>
> > Recent? but "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals"....
>
> Yes, of course... Finally :-)
But homo sapiens are savanna adapted - you have admitted it. Finally!
Ross Macfarlane
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> Yes, you do: aquarboreal
Marc, for the sake of the argument I'm going to state a view that
aquarboreal is a perfectly acceptable contraction of aqua- & arboreal,
semantically similar to many contracted or created words to explain a
scientific phenomenon. For mine the implication is clear that it
relates to a combination aquatic / arboreal lifestyle, not an aquatic
life in the far north.
I am not, of course, going to accept it as a scientific phenomenon
worthy of the name.
>
<snip>
> > Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
>
> FINALLY. Homo sapiens are savanna adapted. Thank you.
>
> You realize, of course, that this admission completely undercuts your
> aquatic argument?
>
> > > > > > > > > > 2) How many early hominids do NOT show arboreal adaptations?
>
> > > > > > > > > No answer...
>
> > > > > > > > Because it's an unintelligible question. What do you mean by
> > this? Rephrase.
> >
> > > > > > > It's a quite clear question. Are there any early hominids that do
> > NOT show arboreal adaptations?
> >
> > > > > > No. Your point??
>
> > > > > Easy to follow. They had arboreal adaptions because they had been more
> > arboreal in their past, oki doki?
> >
> > > > You're not following. You can't explain why they became much larger than
> > monkeys. Not for a purely arboreal life. You can't explain why they lost the
> > tail.
> >
> > > Following? I'm leading. Chimps and gorillas lost their tail as well, yet
> > they're not bipedal. And they're large, but not bipedal. Hence, these are
> > irrelevant.
> >
> > Sigh. Leading?? :-D For the 100th time, we're saying that apiths, chimps,
> > humans & gorillas had aquarboreal ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size,
> > climbing arms overhead. Okidoki? Why on earth do you want to believe that
> > humanlike bipedalism could not have evolved form this??
And why are orangutans large-sized, tailless and arboreal?
>
> Perhaps the lack of evidence has something to do with it...
>
Is the phrase "Why on earth do you want to believe..." significant?
Doesn't this imply (as we have said since Adam was a boy) that your
aquatic theorising has more to do with what you want to believe, than
any reasonable assessment of the available evidence?
Ross Macfarlane
Marc Verhaegen
"Ross Macfarlane" <rmac...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:18fa6145.03041...@posting.google.com...
The Travsky follower...
> > Yes, you do: aquarboreal
> Marc, for the sake of the argument I'm going to state a view that
aquarboreal is a perfectly acceptable contraction of aqua- & arboreal,
semantically similar to many contracted or created words to explain a
scientific phenomenon. For mine the implication is clear that it relates to
a combination aquatic / arboreal lifestyle, not an aquatic life in the far
north.
?? Yes. So?
Who spoke about "an aquatic life in the far north"??
> > > Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
> > FINALLY. Homo sapiens are savanna adapted. Thank you. You realize, of
course, that this admission completely undercuts your aquatic argument?
Sigh.
Another idiot who equates Bushmen=sapiens?
Again:
- all Bushmen are sapiens,
- not all sapiens are Bushmen.
Okidoki?
> > > ... we're saying that apiths, chimps, humans & gorillas had
aquarboreal ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size, climbing arms overhead.
Okidoki? Why on earth do you want to believe that humanlike bipedalism could
not have evolved form this??
No answer?
> And why are orangutans large-sized, tailless and arboreal?
?? haven't you even read our paper??
M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech & S.Munro 2002
"Aquarboreal ancestors?"
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-7
http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
New evidence confirms the idea that human ancestors were not
savannah-dwellers at all, but instead became bipedal in swampy forests, and
evolved during the Ice Ages into coastal omnivores along the Indian Ocean.
Abstract: According to biomolecular data, the great apes split into Asian
pongids (orangutans) and African hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans)
18-12 million years ago and hominids split into gorillas and
humans-chimpanzees 10-6 Mya. Fossils with pongid features appear in Eurasia
after about 15 Mya, and fossils with hominid features appear in Africa after
about 10 Mya. Instead of the traditional savannah-dwelling hypothesis, we
argue that a combination of fossil (including the newly discovered Orrorin,
Ardipithecus and Kenyanthropus hominids) and comparative data now provides
evidence showing that (1) the earliest hominids waded and climbed in swampy
or coastal forests in Africa-Arabia and partly fed on hard-shelled fruits
and molluscs; (2) their australopith descendants in Africa had a comparable
locomotion but generally preferred a diet including wetland plants; (3) the
Homo descendants migrated to or remained near the Indian Ocean coasts, lost
most climbing abilities, and exploited waterside resources.
To answer your question: because they were aquarboreal of course! Why else
IYO?? Please give your idea why orangs are large-sized & tailless &
suspensory.
> Is the phrase "Why on earth do you want to believe..." significant?
Doesn't this imply (as we have said since Adam was a boy) that your aquatic
theorising has more to do with what you want to believe, than any reasonable
assessment of the available evidence? Ross Macfarlane
Any reasonable assessment of the available evidence (human anatomy &
physiology & behaviour give a lot more information than hominid fossils)
clearly shows human ancestors lived at places where water was abundant. Not
in the savanna. Only savanna theorists without the slightest common sense
could come to such nonsense.
Marc Verhaegen
> Parse the components for us. There's "aqua", what you have left over is
"rboreal". Or perhaps you have "arboreal", which leaves "aqu" left over.
Explain.
:-D I thought you were the smartest of the anti-AAT gang.
> > Apiths, you mean? Yes, of course, but why do you believe they had no
aquarboreal ancestors?
No answer, of course.
> What makes you think they did?
For the various reason we give in our paper M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech & S.Munro
2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-7
http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
In short, aquarborealism is the only locomotion that can explain the
transition from monkey-like above-branch locomotion to tailless, suspensory,
large-sized locomotion, as well as can evolve into suspensory locomotion as
well as in humanlike bipedalism as well as into knuckle-walking locomotion.
the sequences are easy to follow. If you have a more coherent scenario,
please let us know.
> > > A forest swamp would merely have been one of them. There is nothing to
suggest that drove bipedalism.
> > Lowland gorillas are more bipedal in the swamp than on land. Nasalis
between mangrove trees is alwyas bipedal or swimming. On land it's bipedal
(unlike other colobines) or quadrupedal. Bonobos in water are nearly always
bipedal, on land rarely. Surprised??
> Only at your lack of proof. Consult Lanting and De Waal's bonobo book, for
example, for nice pictures of bipedal behavior without a bit water around.
What had you expected in an ex-aquarboreal animal?
> I believe it was a show on the Discovery channel, entitled "Apes", that
showed bipedal bonobos - without any water around.
Yes. Idem. You have read Algis's study?
> > Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
> FINALLY. Homo sapiens are savanna adapted. Thank you. You realize, of
course, that this admission completely undercuts your aquatic argument?
:-D Why should it IYO? Or do you still believe Bushmen are Eskimos?
> > we're saying that apiths, chimps, humans & gorillas had aquarboreal
ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size, climbing arms overhead. Okidoki? Why
on earth do you want to believe that humanlike bipedalism could not have
evolved form this??
> Perhaps the lack of evidence has something to do with it...
Lack of evidence? There's plenty of evidence. You only have to look at it.
> The proboscis shows aquatic adaptations, yet has not lost its tail nor
gotten large...
1) Nasalis is at the most at the first step towards aquarborealism. It's
almost fully arboreal, yet it has evolved more bipedality than other
colobines, a larger size, a shorter tail (concolor), more climbing arms
overhead, longer arms... This parallelism suggests the early hominoids lived
in mangrove or flooded or swampy forests. Indeed, that's where most early
fossils are found, eg, Heliopith, Austriacopith, Dryopith, Oreopith.
2) Nasalis is the largest colobine, didn't you know?
3) Nasalis concolor is the only colobine with a short tail, didn't you know?
> > No! Re-read very carefully. Again: If the sapiens LCA had been
savanna-adapted, humans would have been less dependent on water than other
primates, but the contrary is true. Not my fault that Bushmen &
Austr.aboriginals were pushed away form richer environments by other human
populations. Most human populations still are sea- or riverside.
Archeol.evidence suggests their ancestors were waterside. Just read about
eel-farming Austr.aboriginals. And physiol.evidence proves human ancestors
were waterside: we are more, not less, dependent on water that other
primates.
> Bushmen prove that statement wrong. We're savanna adaptable. You've
admitted it.
Yes, we're savanna adaptable. So? We're even moon adaptable. But our anatomy
& physiology & behaviour shows we never lived in dry savannas.
> > A little bit of logic, please. Bushmen belong to sapiens, sapiens does
not belong to bushmen, okidoki?
> A little bit logic, please, no one said that. You're dodging again. I said
"You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens". And that directly contradicts your
assertion that "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals" because bushmen
disprove that rule.
They don't disrupt the rule that the sapiens LCA was waterside adapted.
> > Explain Andaman. Explain Ama. Explain Kilimanjarians. Explain...
> Don't have to; we're talking about the savanna. You admitted bushmen are
savanna adapted. Explain how.
Do it yourself. Why should I have to explain it?? We claim: the sapiens LCA
was waterside adapted. Still waiting for your first argument that this was
not so.
Rich Travsky
>
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E9A00CA...@hotMOVEmail.com...
>
> > Parse the components for us. There's "aqua", what you have left over is
> "rboreal". Or perhaps you have "arboreal", which leaves "aqu" left over.
> Explain.
>
> :-D I thought you were the smartest of the anti-AAT gang.
Because I made you admit the LCA could've been savanna adapted.
> > > Apiths, you mean? Yes, of course, but why do you believe they had no
> aquarboreal ancestors?
>
> No answer, of course.
I did answer: What makes you think they did?
> > What makes you think they did?
>
> For the various reason we give in our paper M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech & S.Munro
> 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-7
> http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
> 0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05
> In short, aquarborealism is the only locomotion that can explain the
> transition from monkey-like above-branch locomotion to tailless, suspensory,
> large-sized locomotion, as well as can evolve into suspensory locomotion as
> well as in humanlike bipedalism as well as into knuckle-walking locomotion.
> the sequences are easy to follow. If you have a more coherent scenario,
> please let us know.
A link that requires subscription. Why am I not surprised?
> > > > A forest swamp would merely have been one of them. There is nothing to
> suggest that drove bipedalism.
>
> > > Lowland gorillas are more bipedal in the swamp than on land. Nasalis
> between mangrove trees is alwyas bipedal or swimming. On land it's bipedal
> (unlike other colobines) or quadrupedal. Bonobos in water are nearly always
> bipedal, on land rarely. Surprised??
>
> > Only at your lack of proof. Consult Lanting and De Waal's bonobo book, for
> example, for nice pictures of bipedal behavior without a bit water around.
>
> What had you expected in an ex-aquarboreal animal?
Then why aren't they full bipeds?
> > I believe it was a show on the Discovery channel, entitled "Apes", that
> showed bipedal bonobos - without any water around.
>
> Yes. Idem. You have read Algis's study?
A few seconds out of the whole observation time! Meaningless!
Especially when compared against observations showing bipedal behavior
without presence of water...
> > > Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
>
> > FINALLY. Homo sapiens are savanna adapted. Thank you. You realize, of
> course, that this admission completely undercuts your aquatic argument?
>
> :-D Why should it IYO? Or do you still believe Bushmen are Eskimos?
Are you really this blind? You've stated categorically humans can't be
savanna adapted. And yet, they're are savanna adapted humans. Explain how
this doesn't undercut your arguments...
> > we're saying that apiths, chimps, humans & gorillas had aquarboreal
> ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size, climbing arms overhead. Okidoki? Why
> on earth do you want to believe that humanlike bipedalism could not have
> evolved form this??
Why on earth would anyone believe it did?
> > Perhaps the lack of evidence has something to do with it...
>
> Lack of evidence? There's plenty of evidence. You only have to look at it.
If your "evidence" had any value then bushmen could not exist.
> > The proboscis shows aquatic adaptations, yet has not lost its tail nor
> gotten large...
>
> 1) Nasalis is at the most at the first step towards aquarborealism. It's
> almost fully arboreal, yet it has evolved more bipedality than other
> colobines, a larger size, a shorter tail (concolor), more climbing arms
> overhead, longer arms... This parallelism suggests the early hominoids lived
> in mangrove or flooded or swampy forests. Indeed, that's where most early
> fossils are found, eg, Heliopith, Austriacopith, Dryopith, Oreopith.
More bipedality? What is the evidence for that?
> 2) Nasalis is the largest colobine, didn't you know?
Irrelevant.
> 3) Nasalis concolor is the only colobine with a short tail, didn't you know?
Irrelvant.
> > > No! Re-read very carefully. Again: If the sapiens LCA had been
> savanna-adapted, humans would have been less dependent on water than other
> primates, but the contrary is true. Not my fault that Bushmen &
> Austr.aboriginals were pushed away form richer environments by other human
> populations. Most human populations still are sea- or riverside.
> Archeol.evidence suggests their ancestors were waterside. Just read about
> eel-farming Austr.aboriginals. And physiol.evidence proves human ancestors
> were waterside: we are more, not less, dependent on water that other
> primates.
>
> > Bushmen prove that statement wrong. We're savanna adaptable. You've
> admitted it.
>
> Yes, we're savanna adaptable. So? We're even moon adaptable. But our anatomy
So? But you said we can't. Are you retracting that claim???
> & physiology & behaviour shows we never lived in dry savannas.
We're not moon adaptable. We can not survive in a vacuum.
> > > A little bit of logic, please. Bushmen belong to sapiens, sapiens does
> not belong to bushmen, okidoki?
>
> > A little bit logic, please, no one said that. You're dodging again. I said
> "You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens". And that directly contradicts your
> assertion that "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals" because bushmen
> disprove that rule.
>
> They don't disrupt the rule that the sapiens LCA was waterside adapted.
What rule? What evidence do you have of that?
> > > Explain Andaman. Explain Ama. Explain Kilimanjarians. Explain...
>
> > Don't have to; we're talking about the savanna. You admitted bushmen are
> savanna adapted. Explain how.
>
> Do it yourself. Why should I have to explain it?? We claim: the sapiens LCA
> was waterside adapted. Still waiting for your first argument that this was
> not so.
*You* have to explain it. Because you have stated that humans *can't* be
savanna adapted...
Marc Verhaegen
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
> > For the various reason we give in our paper M.Verhaegen, P-F.Puech &
S.Munro 2002 "Aquarboreal ancestors?" Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17:212-7
http://reviews.bmn.com/journals/atoz/latest?pii=S0169534702024904&node=TOC%4
0%40TREE%40017%4005%40017_05 In short, aquarborealism is the only locomotion
that can explain the transition from monkey-like above-branch locomotion to
tailless, suspensory, large-sized locomotion, as well as can evolve into
suspensory locomotion as well as in humanlike bipedalism as well as into
knuckle-walking locomotion. The sequences are easy to follow. If you have a
more coherent scenario, please let us know.
> A link that requires subscription. Why am I not surprised?
Still not read it?? Why am I not surprised: trying to give comments, but
being totally uninformed?? As I told you several times, you can find it in
the AAT files AAT-su...@onelist.com at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT/files/TREE.pdf
> > > > > A forest swamp would merely have been one of them. There is
nothing to suggest that drove bipedalism.
> > > > Lowland gorillas are more bipedal in the swamp than on land. Nasalis
between mangrove trees is alwyas bipedal or swimming. On land it's bipedal
(unlike other colobines) or quadrupedal. Bonobos in water are nearly always
bipedal, on land rarely. Surprised??
> > > Only at your lack of proof. Consult Lanting and De Waal's bonobo book,
for example, for nice pictures of bipedal behavior without a bit water
around.
> > What had you expected in an ex-aquarboreal animal?
> Then why aren't they full bipeds?
Do you still believe everything happens at once in evolution?? Ever heard of
Darwin??
> > > I believe it was a show on the Discovery channel, entitled "Apes",
that showed bipedal bonobos - without any water around.
> > Yes. Idem. You have read Algis's study?
> A few seconds out of the whole observation time! Meaningless! Especially
when compared against observations showing bipedal behavior without presence
of water...
Algis clearly showed that bipedalism is far more frequent when bonobos are
in the water than when they're on land. (This finding was to be expected in
our scenario, of course... :-))
> > > > Of course they're savanna adapted!! What else IYO??
> > > FINALLY. Homo sapiens are savanna adapted. Thank you. You realize, of
course, that this admission completely undercuts your aquatic argument?
> > :-D Why should it IYO? Or do you still believe Bushmen are Eskimos?
> Are you really this blind? You've stated categorically humans can't be
savanna adapted. And yet, they're are savanna adapted humans. Explain how
this doesn't undercut your arguments...
How does it IYO?? Do you still believe that all humans are Bushmen?
> > > we're saying that apiths, chimps, humans & gorillas had aquarboreal
ancestors. Hence tail loss, large size, climbing arms overhead. Okidoki? Why
on earth do you want to believe that humanlike bipedalism could not have
evolved form this??
> Why on earth would anyone believe it did?
1) Why not? Yet found 1 counterargument?
2) You have no other good scenario for explaining these features.
> > > Perhaps the lack of evidence has something to do with it...
> > Lack of evidence? There's plenty of evidence. You only have to look at
it.
> If your "evidence" had any value then bushmen could not exist.
Still believing all humans are bushmen??
> > > The proboscis shows aquatic adaptations, yet has not lost its tail nor
gotten large...
> > 1) Nasalis is at the most at the first step towards aquarborealism. It's
almost fully arboreal, yet it has evolved more bipedality than other
colobines, a larger size, a shorter tail (concolor), more climbing arms
overhead, longer arms... This parallelism suggests the early hominoids lived
in mangrove or flooded or swampy forests. Indeed, that's where most early
fossils are found, eg, Heliopith, Austriacopith, Dryopith, Oreopith.
> More bipedality? What is the evidence for that?
Just take any wildlife film of proboscis monkeys.
> > 2) Nasalis is the largest colobine, didn't you know?
> Irrelevant.
?? Do you really believe apes are smaller than monkeys??
> > 3) Nasalis concolor is the only colobine with a short tail, didn't you
know?
> Irrelvant.
?? Do you believe chimps have long tails??
> > > > No! Re-read very carefully. Again: If the sapiens LCA had been
savanna-adapted, humans would have been less dependent on water than other
primates, but the contrary is true. Not my fault that Bushmen &
Austr.aboriginals were pushed away form richer environments by other human
populations. Most human populations still are sea- or riverside.
Archeol.evidence suggests their ancestors were waterside. Just read about
eel-farming Austr.aboriginals. And physiol.evidence proves human ancestors
were waterside: we are more, not less, dependent on water that other
primates.
> > > Bushmen prove that statement wrong. We're savanna adaptable. You've
admitted it.
> > Yes, we're savanna adaptable. So? We're even moon adaptable. But our
anatomy
> So? But you said we can't. Are you retracting that claim???
I said the sapiens LCA did not live in dry savanna. If we had, we would
have, like all mammals living there, less SC fat, less sweating, less
bipedalism, better kidneys etc. etc., but the opposite is true. If bushmen
can survive there it's thanks to the superior handiness, tool use, brain
size etc. their ancestors developed at the seaside. If you really want to
compare the sapiens LCA to living humans, why don't you take Yulni on the
Austr.coast or so? Or the Meriam, eg, Natalie Angier 2002 "Why Childhood
Lasts, and Lasts and Lasts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/science/social/02CHIL.html On the isle of
Mer, a rugged landspit in the Torres Straits near Australia that could fit
easily inside C-Park, some 430 traditional foragers called the Meriam
subsist by grace of the sea. At low tide, young & old alike rush out to the
reef: - Women hurriedly gather up shellfish (conchs, clams, cowries), break
open the shells, extract the meat, and so keep their burdens bearable. -
Men aim bamboo spears tipped with iron to lance up snappers, sea perch, cod
& squid, or they toss out baited hand lines to yank in needlefish, perch,
tuna & mackerel. - Boys & girls, some of them barely old enough to walk,
gather, spear & fish by hand with equal zeal. ...
> > & physiology & behaviour shows we never lived in dry savannas.
> We're not moon adaptable. We can not survive in a vacuum.
Yes, but that's no answer to what I said..
> > > > A little bit of logic, please. Bushmen belong to sapiens, sapiens
does not belong to bushmen, okidoki?
> > > A little bit logic, please, no one said that. You're dodging again. I
said "You, I, and bushmen are homo sapiens". And that directly contradicts
your assertion that "Humans are the opposite of savanna mammals" because
bushmen disprove that rule.
> > They don't disrupt the rule that the sapiens LCA was waterside adapted.
> What rule? What evidence do you have of that?
"Origin of hominid bipedalism" Nature 325:305-306, 1987: "...it is highly
unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the
opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans lack sun-reflecting fur (4) but
have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in
savanna mammals. We have a water- and sodium-wasting cooling system of
abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal
urine concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We
need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than
savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8).
..."
> > > > Explain Andaman. Explain Ama. Explain Kilimanjarians. Explain...
> > > Don't have to; we're talking about the savanna. You admitted bushmen
are savanna adapted. Explain how.
> > Do it yourself. Why should I have to explain it?? We claim: the sapiens
LCA was waterside adapted. Still waiting for your first argument that this
was not so.
> *You* have to explain it.
I have. Your lack of information or poor insight in evolutionary processes
is not my problem.
> Because you have stated that humans *can't* be savanna adapted...
That's obvious, don't you think so when you see the Nature quote above?
Still waiting for you first argument why our scenario would be wrong. If you
think yo have a better scenario for chimp & human evolution, I'm waiting...