Penguin, kangaroo

[Mario Petrinovic]

I was just writing about polar region in another thread, then it
occurred to me. I mean, I am in no way expert on those things (but you
could be), doesn't kangaroo skeleton has the same posture as penguin
skeleton?

[John Harshman]

No, not in the slightest. Aside from the fact that kangaroos sometimes
adopt a bipedal posture, though one that's otherwise completely
different, there's no similarity.

[Mario Petrinovic]

OK, thanks very much. Although, judging from pictures of skeleton, it
does look similar to me (the posture of skeleton).

[Oxyaena]

No, kangaroo skeletons have a horizontal slant, while penguin skeletons
have a vertical slant.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I am looking at legs. It looks to me like femur is at the same
position. I don't recall that I've seen this in other animals, and here
I see the same thing in two completely different animals.

[John Harshman]

What do you mean by "same position"? Femurs, of course, move. They
change position regularly. The kangaroo femur, like that of any mammal,
moves a great deal farther then the penguin femur, which never extends
past the body wall. Nor are the joints between femur and pelvis at all
the same. Then again, if all you mean is that birds and kangaroos share
a short femur and a long tibia, then fine.

[Mario Petrinovic]

No, it isn't just that. This position isn't physically stable, you
have to adapt to it.
When I see bipedal birds (I don't know about every case), I see pelvis
above ankles. This is how it should be. In penguins and kangaroos I see
something that isn't stable. You have vertical fibula/tibia, horizontal
femur, and pelvis that is off axle. Pretty strange configuration to me
(regarding physical balance). It could have something with coldness,
thermal adaptation.

[John Harshman]

I still don't know what you're talking about, and I don't see how it
could have anything to do with thermal adaptation.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I also don't know. I am not presenting any theory, I just noticed that
those creatures aren't stable. Penguin you expect to flip on his back
any time. Kangaroo uses its tail in order to be upright.
Animals from Australia should have passed through colder times
(AFAIK). Penguin is living in colder times.
I just noticed this coincidence, maybe you guys would know something
about it.

[John Harshman]

I think it's about as significant as the correlation between the
geographic distribution of vegemite and echidnas. And penguins seem
stable enough. That you expect them to flip on their backs says less
about the penguin than about you.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Hm, you don't expect then to flip on their backs?

[Oxyaena]

It's Mario, half of what he writes doesn't make sense.

[Daud Deden]

Penguins have very stiff tail feathers that support their weight when standing.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 2.9.2018. 13:28, Daud Deden wrote:
> Penguins have very stiff tail feathers that support their weight when standing.
>

Excellent, thanks.
Anyway, they don't look stable to me.
And I am not the only one:
https://youtu.be/o8dCoGwEnY0

[Daud Deden]

Their walking gait supports them better than human walking on slippery ice, I think they don't suffer from broken hips when they fall

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 2.9.2018. 19:21, Daud Deden wrote:
>
> Their walking gait supports them better than human walking on slippery ice, I think they don't suffer from broken hips when they fall
>

So, this must be it.
I just noticed that kangaroos have the same.
I also noticed how black people dance very elastically, while white
people are more stiff in their movements. This must be for the same
reason. On slippery conditions you must restrain your movements.

[John Harshman]

I sincerely hope that was intended as satire.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I know you hope. Sincerely.
You didn't notice anything? I have no hope that yo did.

[John Harshman]

That's unfortunate. So you're saying that white people can't dance
because their evolutionary history involves a lot of walking on ice. You
don't realize how insane that sounds?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Why would I care if something that I say sounds insane to Average Joe?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Oh, I have a solution for your problem. This will make your life easier.
Put some "scientific" term to it, like "observation". Like, this
"observation" is the result of long-term project.
Put some nice numbers around the thing, and if you make it to look
really scientific, maybe you even manage to attach some title in front
of your name. That way you can look like really smart guy.

[John Harshman]

That's at least a sign that you should reconsider. Perhaps it actually
is insane.

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

So, early on in this thread it was pretty obvious that
English is not your first language so I attributed this
bizarre little interchange to a language barrier. You have
managed to demonstrate that language is not the problem. I
see a raging case of Dunning Kruger combined with a heavy
overlay of envy.

Apparently one can be smart enough to learn a second
language while remaining too aggressively stupid to
recognize one's own ignorance. That's quite a feat you
have accomplished.

--
"The most unsettling aspect of my atheism for Christians is
when they realize that their Bible has no power to make me
wince. They are used to using it like a cattle prod to get
people to cower into compliance." - Author unknown

[Mario Petrinovic]

Thanks.

[Mario Petrinovic]

BTW, I don't know if I will express myself rightly, but I noticed that
a lot of posts here are gossip, or something. Who cares if I am blind on
one eye, the discussion here shouldn't be about that "subject".
For example, *everybody* knows that black people are good dancers.
Better than anybody. Of course, if you've never thought about why is
that so, this, sort of, is irrelevant to you. But, as somebody who is
trying to find the reason for things, I've thought it over, and I am
presenting you, here, the results of my life-long research project. You
should be happy about it. Everything, in what I've said, was on its
place. Black people really do dance well, white people really had
problems with icy conditions, everything fits. Even if I am wrong, I did
a reasonably good conclusion. But, it is true, if I said this to
somebody completely uninterested in those things (the evolution), what
I've said doesn't comply with ordinary memes. Or, "you don't talk like
this" (for some reason, it isn't usual talk, it sounds strange, or
whatever), or it doesn't fit into something, some picture, some social
play, or whatever. I don't care about those things, this is what allows
me to think freely. Somebody who is all the time afraid about how he
behaves, how he can, or mustn't express himself, he will constrain his
thoughts.
Well, this constraining could be deadly in scientific thinking, but,
it looks like it is actually the other way around, if you comply to
usual memes, you will be listened to, you'll be given room.
The only thing that I can say is, no, I am not behaving to the
standards of current fashion, or any other fashion. Yes, it does look
insane. I cannot do anything about it. This is why whole my life I had
problems with Average Joes, who simply couldn't understand why somebody
doesn't comply the usual standards. Thankfully, I didn't have problems
because of that in my life. How come? Because this world is led by smart
men, they can understand what Average Joe cannot.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ha, ha, I also have to mention this. This guy (John Harshman), didn't
say that I am wrong because this and this, his response was fairly
atypical, he doesn't respond to other things, with which he doesn't
agree, the same way. He immediately recognized that the current standard
for somebody who touches similar subjects is to make him insane. If he
didn't understand, he could ask additional questions. But no, he behaved
just like it is expected from him to behave in such a situation, in
order to maintain standards.
Exactly the same thing happened to Sir Alister Hardy.
The only thing I can say is, just like I've learned from when I
watched black and white men dancing, the whole my life is a learning
situation, including this one.

[John Harshman]

Does anyone know if Inuit and Sami are really, really bad dancers?

[Daud Deden]

Mario, have you seen the cartoon movie "Boogie Woogie Dance of the Penguins"?

Wait, wasn't that "March"?

Yeah, cold climate, snow, ice doesn't promote looseness of limbs much.

Humidity may be a factor?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ha, ha, I just commented in another post that you didn't ask this
question before.

[Mario Petrinovic]

No, it is like driving on ice. You simply mustn't do sudden moves. You
must constrain yourself. If this isn't in your blood, if you don't do
this by instinct, automatically, if your muscles and brain didn't learn
to behave like this, you will have problems in slippery conditions.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Actually, when I looked at skeletons of other birds, I noticed that
legs are behaving like springs. No springs in penguins, this all has to
be stiff, legs mustn't store any energy.
Well, I don't know, maybe this is the trick. Maybe fibula/tibia are
stiff, but instead, energy is stored, not in ankle, but in knee.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, your legs have to be stiff, your knees have to be elastic.
Otherwise you will transfer too much energy onto ice. Penguins do have
large feet, but this definitely isn't enough:
https://twitter.com/nhstayside/status/968772042505052160
Some other day I'll take a look whether black people have more elastic
ankles than white, and if white have more elastic knees.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, what I got so far?
Firstly, penguins store a lot of energy in elasticity. While humans
get back some 65% percent in a stride, penguins get back 80%. This is
very similar to kangaroos, which also don't produce speed by the work of
muscles, but by storing energy in tendons.
The second thing that is interesting is that the whole kangaroo family
is called Macropodidae, which means big feet. Penguins also have big
feet. This is needed for grip in slippery conditions.
Third interesting thing is that kangaroos are adapted to poor diet.
Which also can be attributed to polar regions. Horses and camels are of
the same sort.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Pictures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macropodidae#/media/File:Young_red_necked_wallaby.jpg
https://www.google.hr/search?q=penguin&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5_ae7gZ_dAhUwhqYKHWmKASwQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=785#imgrc=ytEcz-JJpbyQ6M:
The differences:
Penguin has (bird-like) beak
Penguin has bird-like feet

[Mario Petrinovic]

OK, to finish this:
Yes, black people have longer Achilles tendon, hence, more elastic
lower leg. So, more elasticity in the ankle region.
https://uksportsci.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/why-are-east-africans-so-dominant/
So, black people are better runners. But, white people are better
swimmers. It is very hard to find study about that (scientists aren't
that good in making conclusions as they think they are, they are lost in
a forest of data, they don't follow logic, but the quantity of data),
but it looks to me as for that you need more work in the knee region.
All in all, I would say that I am on the right track (just like I
always am, :) ).
Peace.

[Daud Deden]

I think walking on flat surface humans are higher, but on rough surface much lower due to leg lifting.

> > This is very similar to kangaroos, which also don't produce speed by the
> > work of muscles, but by storing energy in tendons.
> >         The second thing that is interesting is that the whole kangaroo
> > family is called Macropodidae, which means big feet.

Kangaroo rats & k. mice share this, and aren't of that family but live in deserts.

Penguins also have
> > big feet.

Wading birds have big feet (long divergent toes) for stability in moving water and walking on uneven substrates.

This is needed for grip in slippery conditions.
> >         Third interesting thing is that kangaroos are adapted to poor
> > diet. Which also can be attributed to polar regions. Horses and camels
> > are of the same sort.
>
> OK, to finish this:
> Yes, black people have longer Achilles tendon, hence, more elastic
> lower leg. So, more elasticity in the ankle region.
> https://uksportsci.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/why-are-east-africans-so-dominant/
> So, black people are better runners.

White people have longer history of horse riding, tendon length of domestic riding horses is probably longer than in wild horses.

But, white people are better
> swimmers. It is very hard to find study about that (scientists aren't
> that good in making conclusions as they think they are, they are lost in
> a forest of data, they don't follow logic, but the quantity of data),
> but it looks to me as for that you need more work in the knee region.
> All in all, I would say that I am on the right track (just like I
> always am, :) ).
> Peace.

You are always on the right track since you are building the track.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Hm, I was claiming that we were living on seaside cliffs much before
they've found Pierolapithecus and Crete footprints.
See, it isn't me who builds my track. The track is already here, but
nobody wants to see it. I got lucky, because this is the environment I
am familiar with. Too bad nobody wants to listen, for various reasons.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ha, ha, now I remember of the biggest critique I'v got for my
scenario. The man said that my scenario is too perfect to be accepted by
paleoanthropologists.
Because everything fits perfectly. Nobody expects this from a
scenario. So far, all the scenarios were faulty to some degree. This
would be the first just the right scenario, and nobody expects scenario
that fits so well, so everybody blame it on me, like I have too good
imagination, or whatever.

[Daud Deden]

From the paper:

Our results reveal that the patella of Pierolapithecus is similar to that of extant great apes: proximodistally short, mediolaterally broad and anteroposteriorly thin. Previous biomechanical studies of the anthropoid knee based on the same measurements proposed that the modern great ape patella reflects a mobile knee joint while the long, narrow and thick patella of platyrrhine and especially cercopithecoid monkeys would increase the quadriceps moment arm in knee extension during walking, galloping, climbing and leaping. The patella of Pierolapithecus differs not only from that of monkeys and hylobatids, but also from that of basal hominoids (e.g., Proconsul and Nacholapithecus), which display slightly thinner patellae than extant great apes (the previously-inferred plesiomorphic hominoid condition). If patellar shape in Pierolapithecus is related to modern great ape-like knee function, our results suggest that increased knee mobility might have originally evolved in relation to enhanced climbing capabilities in great apes (such as specialized vertical climbing).

Introduction
The partial hominoid skeleton IPS 21350 from the locality of Barranc de Can Vila 1 [1]–[8], situated in the local stratigraphic series of Abocador de Can Mata (ACM/BCV1; els Hostalets de Pierola, Vallès-Penedès Basin, NE Iberian Peninsula), constitutes the holotype (and so far only known individual) of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. With an estimated age of 11.9 Ma (late Aragonian, Middle Miocene) [9], [10], Pierolapithecus is the oldest undisputed extinct member of the great-ape-and-human clade—i.e., the Hominidae [1], [2], [6], [7], [11].

IPS 21350 comprises more than 80 bones or bone fragments, including the splanchnocranium, key regions of the wrist and ankle complexes, a clavicle, vertebrae and ribs, as well as fragmentary remains of the pelvis and an almost complete patella [1]. The preserved anatomy provides strong evidence of advanced orthograde postures as compared to previous apes [1], [5], [8], although the fragmentary pelvic remains indicate only slight differences from Proconsul [8], stressing the mosaic nature of the postcranial skeleton evolution in Miocene apes [12]. At the same time, hand length proportions and phalangeal anatomy indicate that modern ape-like below-branch suspensory adaptations are lacking. In particular, the hand displays only a moderate length and phalangeal curvature ([2], [4], [13] but see [14], [15] for a different interpretation), the metacarpophalangeal joints are dorsally oriented, and the pollical distal phalanx is long and wide at the base relative to the distal phalanges of the lateral rays [4], [16]. These features indicate that Pierolapithecus—as in other Miocene apes—relied significantly on above-branch palmigrady with a thumb-assisted grasping during arboreal locomotion [12], [17]. Moreover, and as in extant great apes, the triquetrum was distally situated on the wrist, showing a crevice for attachment of a meniscus instead of an articular facet for the ulnar styloid process [1]. The combination of an orthograde body plan and the loss of ulnocarpal articulation (i.e., enhancing ulnar deviation of the hand) with no specific below-branch adaptations suggests that vertical climbing—and not suspension per se—might have been the primary target of natural selection in Pierolapithecus, since it is the only other common behavior to the hominoid crown group [1], [2]. The mosaic nature of the Miocene ape postcranial skeleton should prevent straightforward locomotor reconstructions based solely on isolated anatomical parts in these fossil forms. Instead, different anatomical regions should be considered together (when possible) to more accurately reconstruct their locomotor adaptations. However, although hind limb long bones of Pierolapithecus are not preserved (other than shaft fragments), the morphology of its preserved patella (IPS 21350.37) can potentially provide hints of its knee function, as previous studies have shown for other Miocene taxa [18]. Here we provide a detailed description of the patella from the holotype of Pierolapithecus (IPS 21350) as well as an exhaustive morphometric analysis with selected extant anthropoids and available fossil hominoids. Therefore, the aim of this study is to shed light on the patellar morphology and inferred knee function of Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, it fits perfectly. "...vertical climbing—and not suspension per
se..."

[Daud Deden]

When I climbed vertical cliffs, suspension was critical.

Maybe they used stone tools to build steep staircases up cliffs?

[Mario Petrinovic]

No, you don't need nothing. Especially if you have chosen place in
advance, which is alright for you to climb, yet safe regarding predators.
If kids play on the spot, they can climb up, and jump into water whole
day.
It even doesn't have to be some big climbing. Imagine the edge of a
pool. Simple as that. How many predators could climb out of pool? We can
climb without problems.

[Daud Deden]

Like a steep river bank where the current is eroding the shore, but not the opposite shore where soil is deposited onto the beach?

[Oxyaena]

Congratulations, you have pointed out the obvious. Also, welcome from
talk.origins, Dexter! Not many people from t.o. wander over into this
newsgroup, and the few that do only post occasionally, not including
both t.o. and sbp regulars.

[Oxyaena]

You're welcome.

[Oxyaena]

I have a solution for your problem (that is, wilful stupidity): Read a book.

> Put some "scientific" term to it, like "observation". Like, this
> "observation" is the result of long-term project.
> Put some nice numbers around the thing, and if you make it to
> look really scientific, maybe you even manage to attach some title in
> front of your name. That way you can look like really smart guy.

Congratulations, you have performed the remarkable feat of sounding even
dumber than Nyikos. You must be proud.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/2/2018 9:50 PM, Daud Deden wrote:
> Mario, have you seen the cartoon movie "Boogie Woogie Dance of the Penguins"?
>
> Wait, wasn't that "March"?
>
> Yeah, cold climate, snow, ice doesn't promote looseness of limbs much.

What drugs are you smoking?

>
> Humidity may be a factor?
>

Two idiots fist-fucking each other in a thread filled to the fucking
brim with sheer stupidity. What a lovely sight.

[Oxyaena]

As I asked Deden, what drugs are you smoking, and where can I get some?

For something that addresses the sheer inanity above, have you ever
considered that the fact that penguins can slide on ice isn't a
remarkable feat of physiology, but rather the fact that a penguin can
slide on their stomachs by way of smooth, hair-like feathers acting as
cushions to lessen the affect of friction that will inevitably result
from two objects (in this case, the penguin and the ice) grinding
against each other? One must also take into account that a penguin can't
slide on cold, hard rock, but can only do so on ice, where the ice is
slippery enough to curtail the effects of friction.

[Oxyaena]

Penguins are first and foremost marine animals, so they're specialized
more for swimming in the water than they are for walking on land, which
is why penguins are faster sliding on the ice than they are shuffling on
the ice. Penguins can't slide on solid rock due to the effects of
friction, but *can* slide on solid ice because the slippery nature of
the ice curtails the effects of friction, and the smooth hairy feathers
on the penguin's stomach also curtails the effects of friction on the
ice, acting as a pseudo-"lubricant" of sorts.

Humans are naturally better at walking and running than penguins are,
and that is because humans evolved as persistence hunters, humans aren't
faster than other animals but are far more endurant than other animals,
so they can simply keep walking or jogging while the animal the human is
hunting is driven to exhaustion. Our bodies are specialized for
persistence hunting as well, sweat allows the body to dissipate all the
excess heat gathered during strenuous exercises, such as persistence
hunting, and therefore enabling the human to keep hunting down its prey
or continuing the strenuous activity at the cost of staying hydrated.
Some tribes in Africa still utilize this ancient hunting method. It
doesn't work in far colder areas though, like Siberia or Ice-Age Europe
because sweat needs a naked body to be able to dissipate effectively,
and humans, being tropical animals, need clothing to cover up their
bodies in cold locales to maintain a suitable body temperature, so
ambushing your prey is far more effective in cold climates than
persistence hunting is.

Penguins are naturally far more adept at swimming than humans are, and I
don't think I need to explain why.

Holy shit, stupidity overload.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I do my best.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Actually, this was the first draft of my scenario (coupled with
some fire around), some 26 years ago. Thankfully, I had a friend, who is
a historian, working in Croatian academy, and we were discussing this
scenario. The next week he recommended me a book about AAT. I've eaten
this book in a second (usually I am very slow reader), and after I've
read it I knew exactly where humans evolved (not in a flooded forest,
like this book suggested, but in a very familiar environment to me,
rocky coast). (Sorry for private mail.)

[Mario Petrinovic]

Are you so sure that penguins move around on the ground by the way of
sliding? I am not. As I wrote, penguins are even more efficient in
walking than humans. The same goes to kangaroos.

[Oxyaena]

Can you actually address what I wrote above, or are you just going to
ignore it and keep spouting your nonsense? Humans are better than
penguins at walking, if you want to find out how look at my response to
Deden (the second one, not the first).

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 4.9.2018. 11:27, Oxyaena wrote:

> Humans are naturally better at walking and running than penguins are,
> and that is because humans evolved as persistence hunters, humans aren't
> faster than other animals but are far more endurant than other animals,
> so they can simply keep walking or jogging while the animal the human is
> hunting is driven to exhaustion. Our bodies are specialized for
> persistence hunting as well, sweat allows the body to dissipate all the
> excess heat gathered during strenuous exercises, such as persistence
> hunting, and therefore enabling the human to keep hunting down its prey
> or continuing the strenuous activity at the cost of staying hydrated.
> Some tribes in Africa still utilize this ancient hunting method. It
> doesn't work in far colder areas though, like Siberia or Ice-Age Europe
> because sweat needs a naked body to be able to dissipate effectively,
> and humans, being tropical animals, need clothing to cover up their
> bodies in cold locales to maintain a suitable body temperature, so
> ambushing your prey is far more effective in cold climates than
> persistence hunting is.

I hear this bullshit over and over again. Hey, this isn't true. Which
African tribes hunt like that? Believe me, instead of going to school, I
stayed at home, and watched documentaries, I should know about this.
Instead of repeating "knowledge" that you think you posses, you should
rather contemplate about the logic of things.
There is only one place that allows for such a hunt, because of its
extreme conditions, Kalahari desert.
Look at those really extreme conditions, and then you judge for yourself.
On one hand you have:
- impoverished ecology. Because ecology is impoverished, it needs an
animal that can go to big distances to find food. So, this animal has to
be big. Big animals (like horse) cover big distances, small animals,
small distances. *But* this ecology is impoverished because it is one of
the hottest places on Earth. This is extreme upon extreme, because big
masses collect temperature. So, this big animal (Oryx antelope) has
special adaptations for coping with heat. But, this still is on the very
edge.
On the other hand you have:
- predator that is small (bushman). So, he better copes with heat. I
don't think that he is sweating at all, he doesn't have enough of water
in this environment. This is why he is so small.
So, these, and only these conditions, which stretch temperature
boundaries to the extreme, is suitable for this kind of hunt.
The fact that bushmen are uncivilized doesn't automatically mean that
uncivilized people could hunt like that.
There could be something similar, though. It is dogs that are hunting
by endurance. In India I noticed the practice that humans follow wild
dogs while hunting. Because those humans are bigger than those dogs,
they can steal a catch from them. But, when dogs notice that humans are
following them, they quit the hunt. So, this should be a case when dogs
don't notice that humans are following them.

[Mario Petrinovic]

You mean, the drugs thing?
It is you who didn't address what I was talking about. But, you can
ask the second time, if I missed it.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/4/2018 6:10 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 4.9.2018. 11:27, Oxyaena wrote:
>
>> Humans are naturally better at walking and running than penguins are,
>> and that is because humans evolved as persistence hunters, humans
>> aren't faster than other animals but are far more endurant than other
>> animals, so they can simply keep walking or jogging while the animal
>> the human is hunting is driven to exhaustion. Our bodies are
>> specialized for persistence hunting as well, sweat allows the body to
>> dissipate all the excess heat gathered during strenuous exercises,
>> such as persistence hunting, and therefore enabling the human to keep
>> hunting down its prey or continuing the strenuous activity at the cost
>> of staying hydrated. Some tribes in Africa still utilize this ancient
>> hunting method. It doesn't work in far colder areas though, like
>> Siberia or Ice-Age Europe because sweat needs a naked body to be able
>> to dissipate effectively, and humans, being tropical animals, need
>> clothing to cover up their bodies in cold locales to maintain a
>> suitable body temperature, so ambushing your prey is far more
>> effective in cold climates than persistence hunting is.
>
> I hear this bullshit over and over again. Hey, this isn't true.

> Which African tribes hunt like that? [snip mindless bullshit]

The San Bushmen, asshole.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Aren't they in Kalahari desert?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, lets hear the expert:
https://youtu.be/OtQhybh4zug?t=9m33s

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, I saw the famous footage of "persistence hunting", and I don't
believe a single word. This all is completely fake:
https://youtu.be/826HMLoiE_o
Horses carry humans on their backs, not the other way around.
Just like I wrote in another thread, you can set an ambush, not run
after an animal for 6 hours. You may be a human, but you are not crazy,
crazy people don't survive. This footage was payed for, by somebody.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, I've just read, this footage was, like, made to: "It provides an
illustration of how early man pursued his prey with no weapons."
First, this guy runs with a spear. This is much harder that normal
run. Anybody who carried a riffle will tell you that. It imbalances you.
You can see how people with spear move. Their moves are constrained in
order to make spear not moving much. Second thing, there is no way that
this guy could do this without carrying plastic container, and few
liters of water in it.
This is all fake. My god. And the whole paleoanthropology relies on
that? Somebody is messing with this, big time.
Jesus Christ, I am scared, I am really scared. Somebody evil is
messing around, and people are to stupid to realize simple things.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Jesus, what was that? Adidas? Or Nike?
Jesus Christ.

[Daud Deden]

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 5:15:29 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/2/2018 10:02 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> > On 3.9.2018. 3:50, Daud Deden wrote:
> >> Mario, have you seen the cartoon movie "Boogie Woogie Dance of the
> >> Penguins"?
> >>
> >> Wait, wasn't that "March"?
> >>
> >> Yeah, cold climate, snow, ice doesn't promote looseness of limbs much.
> >>
> >> Humidity may be a factor?
> >>
> >
> > No, it is like driving on ice. You simply mustn't do sudden
> > moves. You must constrain yourself. If this isn't in your blood, if you
> > don't do this by instinct, automatically, if your muscles and brain
> > didn't learn to behave like this, you will have problems in slippery
> > conditions.
>
> As I asked Deden,

Trolls neither rank answers nor require them. Bye, hoax.

[Daud Deden]

So you are saying specifically, "no, not along the banks of crystalline streams, but along rocky seacoasts", right?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Apes evolved along the escarpments, which emerged because of
rifting. Humans specifically (and probably chimps at the beginning,
probably orangutans too, but not using sea) at the sea escarpments of
Red sea, and later they moved along the shore.

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

Thanks, I think. T.O. regulars have occasionally
referenced this group so I thought I'd follow along. Most
of it is well and truly beyond my meager (and I do mean
_meager_ ) understanding of the topic and it takes only a
moment for my eyes to glaze over at some of the discussions
as they can delve into detail that is, to me, often
incomprehensible.

As for stating the obvious, I found it hard to resist.
John apparently has a bottomless font of patience for the
kind of discourse Mario is posting. And I have an immense
admiration for that quality. I run short of it pretty
quickly as you might have noticed.

--
"The most unsettling aspect of my atheism for Christians is
when they realize that their Bible has no power to make me
wince. They are used to using it like a cattle prod to get
people to cower into compliance." - Author unknown

[Daud Deden]

If you are referring to the African Rift Valley, do you think apes lived along the Levant & Anatolian Rift Valleys? Greicopithecus in Greece? Pierolapithecus and Anoiapithecus in Spain?

which emerged because of
> rifting. Humans specifically (and probably chimps at the beginning,
> probably orangutans too, but not using sea) at the sea escarpments of
> Red sea, and later they moved along the shore.

Savanna snoozing cliff hopping penguins of Falkland Islands vs krill: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/gentoo-penguin-dinner-knows-how-fight-back?tgt=nr

(The Falklands wolf went extinct when sailors arrived)

escarpment - National Geographic Society
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/escarpment/

Escarpment usually refers to the bottom of a cliff or a steep slope. (Scarp refers to the cliff itself.) Escarpments separate two level land surfaces. For example, an escarpment could be the area separating the lower parts of the coast from higher plateaus.

[Daud Deden]

Hi, hoax. Bye, hoax.

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

No doubt he is, but for entirely the wrong reason.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Lol, you are a piece of beauty.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Well DD, this shouldn't be so tough. If we (humans) adapted to seaside
rocky coast in Red sea, we continued to live on shore, in various
variations, after various adaptations.

> which emerged because of
>> rifting. Humans specifically (and probably chimps at the beginning,
>> probably orangutans too, but not using sea) at the sea escarpments of
>> Red sea, and later they moved along the shore.

>

> escarpment - National Geographic Society
> https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/escarpment/
>
> Escarpment usually refers to the bottom of a cliff or a steep slope. (Scarp refers to the cliff itself.) Escarpments separate two level land surfaces. For example, an escarpment could be the area separating the lower parts of the coast from higher plateaus.
>

Oh, I didn't know that. I thought that escarpment is a long cliff
(-line). So, I am talking about scarps (I hope this is a long cliff-line).

[Oxyaena]

You're joining our newsgroup? That's great news, we need new blood in
the newsgroup that isn't a dithering idiot, and you more than qualify.

>
> As for stating the obvious, I found it hard to resist.
> John apparently has a bottomless font of patience for the
> kind of discourse Mario is posting. And I have an immense
> admiration for that quality. I run short of it pretty
> quickly as you might have noticed.
>

My patience for idiots is also pretty short, as I`m sure you've noticed,
but I *do* take my time to explain why they're wrong, usually to deaf
ears. Anyways, welcome to sbp!

[Oxyaena]

Psychological projection noted.

[Daud Deden]

I claim H habilis lived along tropical rainforest crystalline streams under woven bowls (roundshields) with sharpened sticks (thrusting spears & digging sticks), and H erectus were H h that moved to the perimeter of the rainforest where height became advantageous cf Okapi=> giraffe, forest elephant => steppe mammoth/savanna elephant.
None of this specified cliffs. But you are talking about an earlier era like pierolapithecus.

>
> > which emerged because of
> >> rifting. Humans specifically (and probably chimps at the beginning,
> >> probably orangutans too, but not using sea) at the sea escarpments of
> >> Red sea, and later they moved along the shore.
>
> >
> > escarpment - National Geographic Society
> > https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/escarpment/
> >
> > Escarpment usually refers to the bottom of a cliff or a steep slope. (Scarp refers to the cliff itself.) Escarpments separate two level land surfaces. For example, an escarpment could be the area separating the lower parts of the coast from higher plateaus.
> >
>
> Oh, I didn't know that. I thought that escarpment is a long cliff
> (-line). So, I am talking about scarps (I hope this is a long cliff-line).

Yes, scarp-dwelling hominoids.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, here is the timeline.
Red Sea, very vertical scarps. I don't know when it was exactly, lets
say, after 30 mya, before 16/17 mya.
Those were apes, all apes. Gibbon, orangutan, gorilla, chimp, human.
Some of them didn't go into sea with their feet. Probably the first
three (gibbon, orangutan, gorilla) didn't go properly into sea. Could be
that gorilla started to use scarps of Greta African Rift.
Chimp/human LCA went properly into sea.
They started to split because southern LCA was more and more involved
into sea. So, those (humans) expelled chimps out of sea, so chimps moved
inland, into Africa. This was all before 16/17 mya.
After contact with Europe those that was by the sea became
Pierolapithecus. They developed our pelvis.
Now, some of those didn't use only rocky coast, but also other coasts,
where they started to live on trees. After some time they moved inland,
living on trees. This happened before 9.5 mya. Those were
Oreopithecus/Ardipithecus. They didn't use fire. Probably had some
simple language.
After that, the ones that remained on rocky coast started to use fire.
Now, this fire helped them to move away from rocky coast, and displace
Oreopithecus/Adripithecus from coastline. This happened after
Tusco-Sardinian island separated from mainland. Those didn't live on
trees (trees were burned down). After 9.5 mya those went inland, using
fire. Those were Ouranopithecus/Australopithecus. They had a bit better
language, but not something special.
Those that didn't move inland, they stayed at the coastline, those
were us, Homo. They used fire, and during time developed very good
language. After some time this language helped them to start tool
manufacturing. After they were good at that, those also moved inland,
confronted Australopithecus inland, and the rest is history (or
pre-history, :) ).

>> So, I am talking about scarps (I hope this is a long cliff-line).
>
> Yes, scarp-dwelling hominoids.
>

Thanks very much, :) .

[Oxyaena]

You're an idiot. You saw the footage, you saw the evidence, but you
don't like it, so obviously reality's wrong and you, an utter moron, is
right. Which is more likely, that everyone else is wrong or that you,
the shining exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect, is right. I have to
thank you for providing the footage though, it was fascinating.

There's a reason why I usually don't waste my time with fools such as
yourself and Deden.

[Oxyaena]

Blame the narrator, not the scientists and hunters in question.

> First, this guy runs with a spear. This is much harder that
> normal run. Anybody who carried a riffle will tell you that. It
> imbalances you. You can see how people with spear move. Their moves are
> constrained in order to make spear not moving much. Second thing, there
> is no way that this guy could do this without carrying plastic
> container, and few liters of water in it.

The spears are strapped to their backs, and they aren't continuously
running, only doing so periodically to exhaust the animal in question,
and before they had plastic containers they had ostrich eggs to provide
water with. It's easy, find an ostrich egg, empty it of its contents,
and then fill it up with water, and carry it with you as you go on the
Hunt. You don't need to continuously run to exhaust an animal, you only
need to pursue it enough to cause it to collapse of exhaustion, most of
the actual hunting is slow tracking of the beast in question.

> This is all fake. My god. And the whole paleoanthropology relies
> on that? Somebody is messing with this, big time.
> Jesus Christ, I am scared, I am really scared. Somebody evil is
> messing around, and people are to stupid to realize simple things.

You need help, serious, *serious* help.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I just saw Daniel Lieberman and his research. What the heck he is
researching? Nike commercials?

>>         First, this guy runs with a spear. This is much harder that
>> normal run. Anybody who carried a riffle will tell you that. It
>> imbalances you. You can see how people with spear move. Their moves are
>> constrained in order to make spear not moving much. Second thing, there
>> is no way that this guy could do this without carrying plastic
>> container, and few liters of water in it.
>
>
> The spears are strapped to their backs, and they aren't continuously
> running, only doing so periodically to exhaust the animal in question,
> and before they had plastic containers they had ostrich eggs to provide
> water with. It's easy, find an ostrich egg, empty it of its contents,
> and then fill it up with water, and carry it with you as you go on the
> Hunt. You don't need to continuously run to exhaust an animal, you only
> need to pursue it enough to cause it to collapse of exhaustion, most of
> the actual hunting is slow tracking of the beast in question.

Give me a break. This animal doesn't behave like you want it to behave
so that your stupid scenario can work. And definitely you are not sure
how it will behave when you start on an 8 hour stupid chase (in the
middle of the worst heat, when you are suppose to bring the animal, and
yourself to the very edge of being alive). They've lost it few times,
only on this fake video. Imagine, you start a chase, and you lose it
after 7 hours of chase. But no, those are "skilled" trail trackers. Give
me a break. Dogs can chase by smell, humans never now if they can find a
track.
This particular animal was exhausted by helicopter. And all this was
pure acting for the purpose of who knows what.
And again, those hunters can set an ambush (this is how you hunt), and
they use poison. You think that they walk/run for 8 hours just to make
Daniel Lieberman and you happy? Well, then the whole animal will not be
enough to replace their energy back. Not to mention water. Not to
mention that you have to transport the meat back to the camp, with all
those scavengers around.
And this egg is oval, so, the center of gravity is away from the body,
much harder to carry than flat container. And it has its own physics,
bumping and bumping onto your body, with every move.
All this reminds on that stupid Kortland's dummy "research".

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, here is another video (evidence), maybe this will turn your
interest into something else:
https://youtu.be/X3DU-7a8mP0

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 5.9.2018. 4:56, Oxyaena wrote:

Btw, for ancient lifestyle the closest approximation should be the
lifestyle of Aborigines. Has any of you, idiots, noticed this? Those
bushmen have bows and arrow, for god's sake. Who told you that they walk
around with spears for 8 hours (and before that, they separate the buck,
"so that his tracks are not confused", Jesus Christ)?

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 5.9.2018. 4:56, Oxyaena wrote:

This is how real hunt looks like, you bloody idiot.
It takes 3 hours just to find animal tracks, and another 2 hours to
reach to the animal. With bow and arrows, and poison, and metal rod, to
dig things, you bloody idiot.
https://youtu.be/BVvii9XSCNU
Do you see, now, how much fake all this persistence hunting is?
Paleoanthropology is full with idiots. They make some stupid research,
of which they are "the experts", write a book about it, which should be
the standard for paleoanthropology, and have a good retirement. You
bloody idiots.

[Daud Deden]

Mario, the clueless netizens are the noisiest. Ostrich eggshells were collected, carried empty to seasonal waterholes to fill & bury, stored there for dry season. Nobody carried them full around, why would they?

[Oxyaena]

You two are the biggest examples of Dunning-Kruger out there. Here's
what I wrote in my second reply to Mario:

"The spears are strapped to their backs, and they aren't continuously
running, only doing so periodically to exhaust the animal in question,
and before they had plastic containers they had ostrich eggs to provide
water with. It's easy, find an ostrich egg, empty it of its contents,
and then fill it up with water, and carry it with you as you go on the
Hunt. You don't need to continuously run to exhaust an animal, you only
need to pursue it enough to cause it to collapse of exhaustion, most of
the actual hunting is slow tracking of the beast in question."

I doubt your actually going to address the contents of what I wrote, and
instead you'll most likely use a fallacious ad hominem against me.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Ok, lets see. They go out of village with ostrich eggs and spears.
After 3 hours they notice some tracks, after another 2 hours they
finally find the animal, or animals. If they find animals, they run
around to separate the biggest one, so that "tracks don't get confused".
Ok, now they start the "persistion hunting" for 8 hours.
Hey Oxyaena, I have news for you. It is you who is the idiot, here.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Those ostrich eggs are needed only for this kind of hunting, because
you need a lot of water for it. For normal hunting tubers would be enough.
Actually, for persistence hunting plastic containers are even better.
And Nike shoes.
BTW, too bad kudu cannot carry plastic containers as well (and Nike
shoes).

[Oxyaena]

That's roughly how it works, except they don't run for 8 hours straight,
only during periodic bursts when the quarry of the hunters is in sight,
and they only do so to keep the prey running enough to cause it to
collapse of exhaustion. The prey is faster than the human hunters, so
therefore it would often be out of sight, thereby necessitating the
hunters to slow down and figure out where their quarry went. A lot of
persistence hunting involves guesswork, when track's aren't visible they
must imagine where their quarry went, and that takes a lot of
brainpower. Once they get on the trail again they track the prey down,
cause it to start running again when it had finally thought it had lost
the hunters and could rest, and they keep doing that until the animal
collapses of exhaustion, at which point they butcher the animal to death
and then harvest its remains.

> Hey Oxyaena, I have news for you. It is you who is the idiot, here.

Baseless assertion asserted as fact without evidence, you're getting the
hang of being a troll, keep at it.

[Dexter]

> > mean meager ) understanding of the topic and it takes

> > only a moment for my eyes to glaze over at some of the
> > discussions as they can delve into detail that is, to
> > me, often incomprehensible.
> >
> > As for stating the obvious, I found it hard to resist.
> > John apparently has a bottomless font of patience for
> > the kind of discourse Mario is posting. And I have an
> > immense admiration for that quality. I run short of it
> > pretty quickly as you might have noticed.
> >
> > --
> > "The most unsettling aspect of my atheism for
> > Christians is when they realize that their Bible has no
> > power to make me wince. They are used to using it like
> > a cattle prod to get people to cower into compliance."
> > - Author unknown
>
> Hi, hoax. Bye, hoax.

______________________________________________

You and Super Mario seem to be two peas in a pod.

[Mario Petrinovic]

The animal collapses out of exhaustion?
Well, I have another theory. When a hunter sees an animal, he reads
Oxyaena's post to it, and the animal dies out of laughter.

[Mario Petrinovic]

BTW, how did they know the animal will collapse? Animal looks alright,
how do they know the animal will collapse before they collapse? Did they
do few decades of scientific research to determine that? Or did their
shaman, The Sad Owl, contacted in his dreams the shaman Daniel
Lieberman, who assured him that everything will be alright, as long as
they keep walking to the edge of their abilities?
I used to walk for ten hours (with stopping for eating, half way) up
and down the mountain. Believe me, if you are not dressed just right,
everything will hurt, because of rubbing of clothes. Runners know this.
Your nipples get rubbed, and get hurt. Runners put bandages on their
nipples. Imagine what would an ostrich egg do to you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 10:51:16 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> On 5.9.2018. 16:19, Oxyaena

At this point, Oxyaena returned to the fray with:

> > You two are the biggest examples of Dunning-Kruger out there.

On the other hand, Oxyaena started a thread, "Flight mechanics in
pterosaurs and birds" with high school level information gleaned
from Wikipedia, and I've seen similarly low-level behavior
on theology and philosophy in talk.origins.

I've been posting research level information on that
pterosaur thread and urging Oxyaena (who is married to a
paleontologist, and claims to be one too)
to try and find some, but up to now, all I get
is more Wikipedia stuff and no attempt at even
cutting and pasting much better stuff from webpages
easily obtainable by using searches via Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.

> > Here's
> > what I wrote in my second reply to Mario:
> >
> > "The spears are strapped to their backs, and they aren't continuously
> > running, only doing so periodically to exhaust the animal in question,
> > and before they had plastic containers they had ostrich eggs to provide
> > water with. It's easy, find an ostrich egg, empty it of its contents,
> > and then fill it up with water, and carry it with you as you go on the
> > Hunt. You don't need to continuously run to exhaust an animal, you only
> > need to pursue it enough to cause it to collapse of exhaustion, most of
> > the actual hunting is slow tracking of the beast in question."
> >
> > I doubt your actually going to address the contents of what I wrote, and
> > instead you'll most likely use a fallacious ad hominem against me.

I once saw a wildlife film in which the filmers followed a
number of African animals in a jeep. Their conclusion was
that the animals that never seemed to tire from running
were NOT mammals but -- ostriches.

> Ok, lets see. They go out of village with ostrich eggs and spears.
> After 3 hours they notice some tracks, after another 2 hours they
> finally find the animal, or animals. If they find animals, they run
> around to separate the biggest one, so that "tracks don't get confused".
> Ok, now they start the "persistion hunting" for 8 hours.
> Hey Oxyaena, I have news for you. It is you who is the idiot, here.

Oxyaena naturally disputes that. If you were to click on "show original"
in New Google Groups to the post to which you are replying, you would
see a spoofed e-mail address,

From: Oxyaena <oxy...@is.better.than.you>

But don't be too hasty to conclude too much from that. You see,
Oxyaena also used that spoofed address for a reply to Erik Simpson:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/s4GvNGVaSWg/Q2Zte_dEBAAJ
From: Oxyaena <oxy...@is.better.than.you>
Subject: Re: Where's Erik?
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 13:31:14 -0400
Message-ID: <pmmffi$j0e$1...@news.albasani.net>

And I was always under the impression that Oxyaena is fond
of Erik.

But I am the "possessor" of an Oxyaena exclusive:
a spoofed e-mail address in a post replying to one of mine,
that has never been used (so far) in
reply to anyone else by Oxyaena:

From: Oxyaena <oxy...@ascended.to.godhood>

You can find the post, with that line and much else displayed, here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.bio.paleontology/s4GvNGVaSWg/zxyNWNiwAQAJ
Subject: Re: Where's Erik?
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:52:41 -0400
Message-ID: <pmrien$1htk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

Peter Nyikos

[Mario Petrinovic]

Thanks Peter.
In general, I don't care who stands behind a post. There were times
when I was discussing something, and I even didn't notice if the other
person was man or a woman. In general, I discuss ideas, with whomever
wants to discuss them with me. I don't discuss so that the outcome is
that I win a competition, or somebody's attention, but solely to improve
my ideas. So, everybody is welcome.
In that particular case, the major idea of the person with which I had
a discussion is that I am an idiot. So, I can discuss things that way,
also, :) .
It isn't mean that I am touched emotionally, or anything, it is just
the it turned out that the "meat" of the discussion became calling
names. So, I say, I can call names as well, why not? :) Just to show the
other person what she is actually doing.
Emotionally, I am relatively normal person. But, when I discuss ideas
I am flat as Bonneville salt flats in Utah, I don't care about
absolutely anything except about the logic of the idea. I am not a bad
person, but when I discuss ideas I am sharp as razor blade. I can hurt
people, even if I like them, just because I am completely straight.
OTOH, nobody can hurt me (in a logical discussion). If he proves me
anything I'll be more than happy, especially if he proves that I am
wrong (I don't like to waste my time for nothing). The name calling
isn't a part of the logic of discussion, so I cannot be hurt that way.
Only, it turned out that this was her only argument, so I've made my
part, and ended this "argumentation", lol.

[Peter Nyikos]

Correction: that only applies to sci.bio.paleontology. Oxyaena used
that narcissistic e-mail address half a dozen times in talk.origins.
And not just in reply to me. You can read about that in the
following post, in which I reply to a bunch of insults in as
calm a way as I can:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/uYvqBgRwAwAJ
Subject: Re: More Dawkins
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <948d0c05-dc61-4bae...@googlegroups.com>

> > You can find the post, with that line and much else displayed, here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.bio.paleontology/s4GvNGVaSWg/zxyNWNiwAQAJ
> > Subject: Re: Where's Erik?
> > Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:52:41 -0400
> > Message-ID: <pmrien$1htk$1...@gioia.aioe.org>
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> >
>
> Thanks Peter.
> In general, I don't care who stands behind a post. There were times
> when I was discussing something, and I even didn't notice if the other
> person was man or a woman. In general, I discuss ideas, with whomever
> wants to discuss them with me. I don't discuss so that the outcome is
> that I win a competition, or somebody's attention, but solely to improve
> my ideas. So, everybody is welcome.
> In that particular case, the major idea of the person with which I had
> a discussion is that I am an idiot. So, I can discuss things that way,
> also, :) .
> It isn't mean that I am touched emotionally, or anything, it is just
> the it turned out that the "meat" of the discussion became calling
> names. So, I say, I can call names as well, why not? :) Just to show the
> other person what she is actually doing.
> Emotionally, I am relatively normal person. But, when I discuss ideas
> I am flat as Bonneville salt flats in Utah, I don't care about
> absolutely anything except about the logic of the idea.

Good for you.

> I am not a bad
> person, but when I discuss ideas I am sharp as razor blade. I can hurt
> people, even if I like them, just because I am completely straight.
> OTOH, nobody can hurt me (in a logical discussion). If he proves me
> anything I'll be more than happy, especially if he proves that I am
> wrong (I don't like to waste my time for nothing). The name calling
> isn't a part of the logic of discussion, so I cannot be hurt that way.
> Only, it turned out that this was her only argument, so I've made my
> part, and ended this "argumentation", lol.

Here in sci.bio.paleontology, I've followed a policy of snipping out abuse from Oxyaena without even marking the snip, and then replying
in a non-insulting way, for the last 2+1/2 weeks. It seems to be
working out pretty well. It would NOT work in talk.origins without
a great deal of preparation, because Oxyaena has lots of support
there from kindred spirits.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

If you could deliberately stop libeling me, that'd be great. I told you
those emails were jokes, you piece of fucking shit. I`m forwarding this
to talk.origins so people can see just how much of a fuckng coward you
really are.

Why must you continuously torment me? Why must you repeatedly hound on
me, despite the fact that you had nothing to do with this thread?
Despite the fact that you complain about me supposedly doing so? You're
a hypocritical fuck.

--
"A wizard did it." - Ancient proverb

[Oxyaena]

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, I think that this is of crucial importance, and I take great care
to not be affected in any way by "outside" influences, other that the
subject.

>> I am not a bad
>> person, but when I discuss ideas I am sharp as razor blade. I can hurt
>> people, even if I like them, just because I am completely straight.
>> OTOH, nobody can hurt me (in a logical discussion). If he proves me
>> anything I'll be more than happy, especially if he proves that I am
>> wrong (I don't like to waste my time for nothing). The name calling
>> isn't a part of the logic of discussion, so I cannot be hurt that way.
>> Only, it turned out that this was her only argument, so I've made my
>> part, and ended this "argumentation", lol.
>
> Here in sci.bio.paleontology, I've followed a policy of snipping out abuse from Oxyaena without even marking the snip, and then replying
> in a non-insulting way, for the last 2+1/2 weeks. It seems to be
> working out pretty well. It would NOT work in talk.origins without
> a great deal of preparation, because Oxyaena has lots of support
> there from kindred spirits.

I've never been to that place, and I will never go. I imagine that
place as a place where I would have to convince people that evolution is
real.
I don't think that this can be done. Everybody is entitled to his own
opinion, and his logic.

[Peter Nyikos]

I'm taking a look at how this thread got started, and I am amazed
how superficially Harshman answered you, Mario.


On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 8:57:15 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 2.9.2018. 1:59, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 9/1/18 3:11 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >> On 1.9.2018. 23:50, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 9/1/18 12:19 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>> On 1.9.2018. 20:28, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/31/2018 2:08 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>>         I was just writing about polar region in another thread,
> >>>>>> then it
> >>>>>> occurred to me. I mean, I am in no way expert on those things (but
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> could be), doesn't kangaroo skeleton has the same posture as penguin
> >>>>>> skeleton?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, kangaroo skeletons have a horizontal slant, while penguin
> >>>>> skeletons have a vertical slant.
> >>>>
> >>>>          I am looking at legs. It looks to me like femur is at the
> >>>> same position.


I've been having a hard time finding a discussion of the structure
of a kangaroo femur. Bird femurs I know about from a book where they
are contrasted with pterosaur femurs. Birds have the femur
coming out almost at right angles to the socket, and the
small part adjacent to the joint makes nearly a right angle with the
shaft of the femur. In pterosaurs, the latter angle is almost always
over 120 degrees, and the former is about as great.

The pictures I have seen so far of kangaroo skeletons suggest
that what holds for birds holds for them, but I have yet to find a picture
of a kangaroo femur all by itself. Harshman wrote otherwise below,
but gave no specifics.


> >>>>I don't recall that I've seen this in other animals,
> >>>> and here I see the same thing in two completely different animals.

What specifics have you been able to find out about kangaroo femurs, Mario?


> >>> What do you mean by "same position"?

Funny, I don't see Harshman accusing you of being "vague" and
"unclear," whereas that is a staple with him when debating things
with me in situations like this, and even places where I am far
more clear than you are here. And yet he *seems* to have
a better opinion of me than of you. Go figure.


> >>> Femurs, of course, move. They
> >>> change position regularly. The kangaroo femur, like that of any
> >>> mammal, moves a great deal farther then the penguin femur, which
> >>> never extends past the body wall. Nor are the joints between femur
> >>> and pelvis at all the same.

I'll have to ask Harshman about this in direct reply to him.


> >>> Then again, if all you mean is that birds
> >>> and kangaroos share a short femur and a long tibia, then fine.
> >>
> >>          No, it isn't just that. This position isn't physically
> >> stable, you have to adapt to it.
> >>          When I see bipedal birds (I don't know about every case), I
> >> see pelvis above ankles. This is how it should be. In penguins and
> >> kangaroos I see something that isn't stable. You have vertical
> >> fibula/tibia, horizontal femur,

Yes -- but at what angle to the main part of the body? With kangaroos
it looks like the femurs are more or less parallel to the body and tail,
whereas in penguins it looks like they stick out more to the side.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a 3D animation of
a kangaroo skeleton being turned around so you can look at it from
all angles, the way there is for the penguin skeleton.


> >> and pelvis that is off axle.

What did you mean by this?


> >> Pretty
> >> strange configuration to me (regarding physical balance). It could
> >> have something with coldness, thermal adaptation.
> >
> > I still don't know what you're talking about, and I don't see how it
> > could have anything to do with thermal adaptation.
>
> I also don't know. I am not presenting any theory, I just noticed that
> those creatures aren't stable. Penguin you expect to flip on his back
> any time. Kangaroo uses its tail in order to be upright.

Yes, but kangaroos are totally stable with those heavy tails -- almost
unique in mammals. They can even support their entire body weight with
those tails, although in *that* position I imagine they would be
unstable.

I'm really surprised that Harshman didn't address this issue at all.
Sure, he specializes in birds, but as a professional biologist he
should surely know as much about kangaroos as I've said here.


> Animals from Australia should have passed through colder times
> (AFAIK).

Significantly colder, hence the gigantism in marsupials during the Pleistocene.
The ordinary grey kangaroo had a variety (maybe not even a subspecies)
ten feet tall back then.

But kangaroos go back to a long time before that, back to before the
Antarctic ice cap began to form in the Miocene, AFAIK. Temperatures
were warmer back then than they are now, even with global warming.
And penguins go back that far too, AFAIK.


You didn't get this kind of talk from Harshman. He is almost never
as helpful as I've been to you in just these last two paragraphs.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Mario Petrinovic]

Yes, lol, I was also intrigued. I expected at least something.
Actually, when I thought it over, about the situation, I believe that
he expected something to mumble about, but he didn't find what he was
looking for, so he kept quiet, which I consider like a good thing. If he
had find something to mumble, he would attack me "with all his force", lol.
Only at the very end he relieved himself, :) .

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/18 12:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I'm taking a look at how this thread got started, and I am amazed
> how superficially Harshman answered you, Mario.

Yes, I see you spend most of this post detailing my shortcomings. Would
you consider staying more on-topic? I might even respond to you.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 5:36:29 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/7/18 12:10 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > I'm taking a look at how this thread got started, and I am amazed
> > how superficially Harshman answered you, Mario.
>
> Yes, I see you spend most of this post detailing my shortcomings.

Highly subjective distorted allegation noted. I don't think
you read half of what I had written.

> Would
> you consider staying more on-topic?

I've posted more on topic in the post to which you are replying
than you have in all the posts you've done on it so far.
I even worked in some paleontology near the end, whereas you
haven't come within a country mile of touching paleontology.


And, in case you haven't noticed, you didn't post a smidgin of on-topic
material in this post of yours.

> I might even respond to you.

How about responding to the following on-topic excerpts that
I've reposted from the post? I suspect it will look completely
unfamiliar to you:

_____________________first excerpt___________________________

've been having a hard time finding a discussion of the structure
of a kangaroo femur. Bird femurs I know about from a book where they
are contrasted with pterosaur femurs. Birds have the femur
coming out almost at right angles to the socket, and the
small part adjacent to the joint makes nearly a right angle with the
shaft of the femur. In pterosaurs, the latter angle is almost always
over 120 degrees, and the former is about as great.

The pictures I have seen so far of kangaroo skeletons suggest
that what holds for birds holds for them, but I have yet to find a picture
of a kangaroo femur all by itself. Harshman wrote otherwise below,
but gave no specifics.

======================== end of first excerpt=======================

The second excerpt begins with your contribution to the topic
of kangaroo femurs:

_____________________________________________________________

> >>> Femurs, of course, move. They
> >>> change position regularly. The kangaroo femur, like that of any
> >>> mammal, moves a great deal farther then the penguin femur, which
> >>> never extends past the body wall. Nor are the joints between femur
> >>> and pelvis at all the same.

I'll have to ask Harshman about this in direct reply to him.

====================== end of second excerpt ===================

Note how you seem to be at odds with my impression that "what holds
for birds holds for [kangaroos]," but you are being vague *sensu Harshman*
or if you prefer, "unclear *sensu Harshman".

I didn't see any clarification by you later, but I added a little
something in reply to Mario:

________________________ third excerpt _______________________

> >> When I see bipedal birds (I don't know about every case), I
> >> see pelvis above ankles. This is how it should be. In penguins and
> >> kangaroos I see something that isn't stable. You have vertical
> >> fibula/tibia, horizontal femur,

Yes -- but at what angle to the main part of the body? With kangaroos
it looks like the femurs are more or less parallel to the body and tail,
whereas in penguins it looks like they stick out more to the side.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a 3D animation of
a kangaroo skeleton being turned around so you can look at it from
all angles, the way there is for the penguin skeleton.


> >> and pelvis that is off axle.

What did you mean by this?

========================= end of third excerpt ===================

I presume you know what he meant by that last bit, because
you didn't ask him, but I don't. I suppose Mario will explain
sooner or later, but I wouldn't mind if you tell us what he
meant by it. And I'd appreciate it if you could let us both know
whether he was right or wrong.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Mario Petrinovic]

Not, me, I am done with kangaroos for this season. There are other
interesting things going on. I just compiled my cladogram, and now I
have to check some things, :) .

[John Harshman]

On 9/7/18 4:38 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> How about responding to the following on-topic excerpts that
> I've reposted from the post?

Shan't. Consider it a protest against your frequent off-topic, even
insulting asides. Try leaving them out next time.