Endurance athletes heavy water consumers
nickname
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
(Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
truckload of salt too!)
Rick Wagler
"nickname" <alas_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
It's not need. It's the ability to find. And note
that amateur marathoners who take much longer
than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
too much water. AATers vastly overstate human
need for water.
Rick Wagler
nickname
> "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
>
>
> > (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> > truckload of salt too!)
>
> It's not need. It's the ability to find. And note
> that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> too much water. AATers vastly overstate human
> need for water.
>
> Rick Wagler
Amateurs are cautioned against drinking too much *freshwater* (lacks
electrolytes found in seawater, coconuts, fruit), due to dilution of
essential salts etc., a dangerous condition for strenuous activity.
With poor olfaction, limited hearing and inability to see water
underground, humans can walk over underground springs without even
knowing, while elephants stop and dig. (Elephants dig up underground
water pipes.)
Paul Crowley
> "nickname" <alas_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
>>
>> (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
>> truckload of salt too!)
>
> It's not need. It's the ability to find. And note
> that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> too much water.
They often die from 'water poisoning',
i.e. not enough salt in their bloodstream.
One death, and other casualties came
from this event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6583677.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/apr/24/athletics.sport1
" . . St John Ambulance said of the 5,032 people it treated, 73 went to
hospital as runners battled 21C temperatures at midday, equalling
the 1996 record. . ."
You can also die simply from taking too
much water and not enough salt in ordinary
daily activity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3044502.stm
> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
Do you sweat? How many other mammals
do so regularly?
Paul.
Rick Wagler
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:gF_pk.26749$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
quintessential savannah dwellers.
Rick Wagler
Gerrit Hanenburg
And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
Ecology and Behavior": 295).
In fact, many primates are capable of eccrine sweating although most
of the time it's not obvious because they do not sweat profusely
(neither do we all the time), but "of the non-human primates studied
only the rhesus monkey (M. mulatta) has been found to have an eccrine
sweating response comparable to humans (Harrison et al. 1988. Human
Biology: An Introduction to Human Evolution, Variation, Growth, and
Adaptability, Oxford University Press. p.455).
And humans sweat profusely only under certain circumstances, under the
threat of hyperthermia, e.g. during excercise or exposure to high
environmental temperatures when not acclimatized.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
>> Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
>> (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
>> truckload of salt too!)
SF:
> It's not need. It's the ability to find. And note
> that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> too much water. AATers vastly overstate human
> need for water.
We *very* correctly estimate the need for water:
Water Economics
Drinking water
Among the commonest of mammalian adaptations to a hot, dry habitat is a
minimal dependence on drinking water. Many small savannah and desert mammals
(burrowing and nocturnal) do not drink at all. The same is true of some of
the African ungulates such as the eland and the oryx (Taylor, 1970).
Carnivores usually need to drink more because their diet consists of
relatively large amounts of protein, which requires a lot of water for its
excretion in the urine (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, p. 125). Yet in desert
habitats even carnivores such as fennecs have the capacity to survive
without drinking. Many arboreal primates such as langurs almost never drink
because the moisture in their vegetarian diet is sufficient for their needs
(Napier and Napier, 1985, p. 151). If the ancestors of human beings had left
the forests and gone into more open environments, they would have evolved
the capacity to become more conservative with water as a means of adapting
to their habitat.
Precisely the opposite it true. Humans, even without exercise and in
temperate climates, have to drink much more than any other terrestrial
mammal. Otherwise they would become susceptible to cystitis and other
infections, kidney stones, and especially dehydration. Without intervention,
a dehydration of about 10 per cent may be fatal for humans, whereas most
animals can rapidly recover from a dehydration of 20 per cent. For instance,
dogs can survive a dehydration of 17 per cent, cats 20 per cent, camels and
donkeys 25 per cent (Wilson, 1979, p. 753; Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, pp. 15,
62, 89, 123-5).
Sweat production
Of all mammals, man has the highest sweat production (Newman, 1970).
Montagna (1965) says: ŚSweating is an enigma that amounts to a major
biological blunder; it depletes the body not only of water, but also of
sodium and essential electrolytesą. But sweating is only one of the
strategies mammals have evolved to prevent overheating. Many small mammals -
such as rodents, marsupials and cats - use saliva instead of sweat for
thermoregulation, spreading it over the more sparsely haired areas of the
skin so that in evaporating it cools the body. Some larger mammals - such as
dogs - reduce their body temperature by panting; others, like horses and
cattle, sweat; sheep do both. But the maximum water loss per unit of skin
surface in these species is always much smaller than in humans (Newman,
1970; Schmidt-Nielsen, pp. 54, 73, 83).
Although camels sweat, they have adapted to their arid environment by
reducing water loss to a minimum; they do this by allowing their body
temperature to rise during the day; the heat thus stored is given up at
night without any expenditure of water. African hunting dogs (which, like
dogs, do not sweat and do not salivate, and, unlike dogs, do not even pant)
use the same strategy: they conserve water both by hiding in holes during
the day and by allowing their body temperature to reach a level which in
humans would be fatal, around 42°C (Kanwisher, 1977).
Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined with low
body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions and the
least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat. As far as is known,
fur seals are the only non-human mammals which sweat thermoactively through
abundant eccrine glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are
overheated on land (G. A. Bartholomew, in McFarland et al., 1979, p. 773).
Other water losses
Maximum urine concentration tends to vary according to the amount of water
available in the environment and the diet (Table 11.l). Pigs and macaques,
herbivores with a succulent diet, produce urine slightly more dilute than
humans; that of freshwater beavers is much more dilute. On the other hand,
the urine of dolphins is slightly more concentrated, and that of most land
mammals like cats, dogs, sheep and rats is much more concentrated than in
humans. In the savannah and desert dwellers, renal osmotic power is at the
maximum. This seems to imply that human ancestors had ready access to a
plentiful supply of fresh water or possibly brackish water, or at least to
large quantities of fruits and fresh vegetables. Neither of these conditions
is likely to have been fulfilled on the savannah. Even an evolution of only
a few hundred thousand years in a mosaic gallery environment would have
selected a higher urine concentration capacity.
The water content of human faeces tells a similar story. When camels drink
daily, their faeces consist of 50-65 per cent water; when they have no
access to drinking water, it is only 45 per cent (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, p.
61). Small desert rodents have a faecal water content in a similar range,
between 45 and 50 per cent (Macmillen, 1972) as compared with about 70 per
cent in the white rat. Human faeces normally consist of 75 per cent water
(Diem and Lentler, 1978, p. 658).
The final channel of water loss is through exhaled air. Many animals in arid
and semi-arid environments - such as kangaroos, giraffes and camels, as well
as reindeer in the arctic desert - conserve most of the water breathed out
from the lungs by utilising counter-current exchange of water during
expiration. In humans, however, more saturated air is exhaled (Langman,
1985; Walker, Wells and Merrill, 1961).
Human water needs in hot, open environments
The total water expended by humans in sweat may easily reach 10 or 15 litres
per day in hot and open environments (Newman, 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen, p. 12).
Man needs to ingest water in large quantities to replace this loss. It might
therefore be expected that he would have acquired the capacity to drink deep
when water was available, and possibly to retain the water in his body.
As in the other instances quoted, the reverse is true. In the
above-mentioned volume Schmidt-Nielsen makes this clear. Manąs body is not
adapted to store water: any excess taken in, for whatever reason, is rapidly
excreted by the kidneys (p. 18). He has little, if any, ability to be
trained to use less water (p. 22). When water is available, he is an
unusually slow drinker. A very thirsty man can drink 3 per cent of his body
weight in ten minutes, but a dehydrated camel, 30 per cent (p. 67).
Moreover, when in danger of dehydration, man does not drink enough to
replenish the water loss even if a plentiful supply of water is available
(p. 9).
Conclusion
All the available evidence points to an extreme dependence on water in
humans (Table 11.2). Even if our ancestors once lived in mosaic savannah
environments, they would be expected to have evolved a more efficient system
of water conservation than is in fact the case. ŚMan suffers from a unique
trio of conditions: hypotrichosis corporis, hyperhydrosis, and polydipsiaą
(nakedness, sweatiness and thirst) (Newman, 1970). Humans cannot withstand
hyperthermia and cannot store heat. They have abundant sweat and tears,
rather saturated expiration and dilute urine, watery faeces, a low drinking
capacity, a naked skin, a rather thick subcutaneous fat layer over the
central body parts, a rather low body temperature and a small circadian
temperature fluctuation.
Each of these features suggests that man evolved in an environment where
water was permanently and abundantly available. In combination, they point
irresistibly to the conclusion that wherever man evolved these
characteristics, it could not have been on the savannah.
nickname
wrote:> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&em...
"Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
Humans sweat while asleep, and burn more calories while sleeping than
while watching TV, and exhale lots of water vapor while asleep,
especially in dry air, very wasteful of water and salt, ridiculous on
savanna or in rainforest.
AFAIK HPG have widespread eccrine sweat glands & lice, orangutans
lack widespread eccrines* and have no lice.
(* uncertain, but haven't found any support for orangutans with
widespread eccrine sweat glands, aside from volar surfaces).
Therefore IMO Orangutans must have left the coasts earlier than HPG,
and wasteful salt/water sweating has been selected out. Chimps and
gorillas are still undergoing this, and humans as well, though
technology/trade has suspended selection, due to stuff like gatorade
availability for joggers.
I'm certain that many mammals are capable of eccrine sweating,
especially on the volar surfaces (palms, soles). The all-over eccrine
sweating humans is quite wasteful, and without supporting technology/
trade, would result in strong selection for near-seashore living (but
obviously not full-time aquatic habitat).
nickname
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gF_pk.26749$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> > "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >news:D5Ypk.14331$hx.13093@pd7urf3no...
>
> >> "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
>
Yes, zebras are fast sprinters, which is when they sweat heavily,
sweating is an emergency response, wasteful but temporary, unlike
humans who sweat significantly even while asleep.
Paul Crowley
news:441ha45tpjklg2em2...@4ax.com...
>>>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
>>>
>>> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
>>> do so regularly?
>>>
>>Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
>>Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
>>quintessential savannah dwellers.
Sweating is a reserve emergency resouce,
used mainly for short-term sprints to escape
predators. However, zebras are not territorial
and will travel to sites where they can top up
on salt.
> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
Male gorillas are huge animals, and will
generate much heat from vigorous
activity. But they also are well-known
to go on 'salt-treks'.
> In fact, many primates are capable of eccrine sweating although most
> of the time it's not obvious because they do not sweat profusely
> (neither do we all the time), but "of the non-human primates studied
> only the rhesus monkey (M. mulatta) has been found to have an eccrine
> sweating response comparable to humans (Harrison et al. 1988. Human
> Biology: An Introduction to Human Evolution, Variation, Growth, and
> Adaptability, Oxford University Press. p.455).
> And humans sweat profusely only under certain circumstances, under the
> threat of hyperthermia, e.g. during excercise or exposure to high
> environmental temperatures when not acclimatized.
Go to some outdoor activity -- the beach
or the zoo, and take a look around you.
It is bad science to try to deny ordinary
everyday facts.
Paul.
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
DD:
>>> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
>>> do so regularly?
SF:
>> Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
>> Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
>> quintessential savannah dwellers.
DD:
> Yes, zebras are fast sprinters, which is when they sweat heavily,
> sweating is an emergency response, wasteful but temporary, unlike
> humans who sweat significantly even while asleep.
Yes, a dehydration of c 10 % may be fatal for humans, but most mammals
(dogs, cats...) rapidly recover from a dehydration of c 20 %, camels &
donkeys (& I guess zebras) 25 %.
Sealions on land sweat abundantly when overheated.
But the savanna fools think we evolved sweating for running after kudus...
Montagna: "Sweating is an enigma that amounts to a major biological blunder;
it depletes the body not only of water, but also of sodium & essential
electrolytes."
--Marc
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>>>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
>>>>
>>>> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
>>>> do so regularly?
>>>>
>>>Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
>>>Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
>>>quintessential savannah dwellers.
>
>Sweating is a reserve emergency resouce,
>used mainly for short-term sprints to escape
>predators. However, zebras are not territorial
>and will travel to sites where they can top up
>on salt.
>
>> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
>> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
>> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
>> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
>> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
>
>Male gorillas are huge animals, and will
>generate much heat from vigorous
>activity.
Like "lie in the direct sun for more than two hours"?
>But they also are well-known to go on 'salt-treks'.
They will occassionally consume soil, apparently for its mineral
content. Schaller observed them do it twice during his entire study,
but "Although gorillas ate soil occassionally, they apparently did not
seek out such salt-rich sites habitually. At least three times group
VIII passed within 100 feet of the locality from which sample 2 was
collected without deviating from its course." (op. cit. p.166).
>> In fact, many primates are capable of eccrine sweating although most
>> of the time it's not obvious because they do not sweat profusely
>> (neither do we all the time), but "of the non-human primates studied
>> only the rhesus monkey (M. mulatta) has been found to have an eccrine
>> sweating response comparable to humans (Harrison et al. 1988. Human
>> Biology: An Introduction to Human Evolution, Variation, Growth, and
>> Adaptability, Oxford University Press. p.455).
>> And humans sweat profusely only under certain circumstances, under the
>> threat of hyperthermia, e.g. during excercise or exposure to high
>> environmental temperatures when not acclimatized.
>
>Go to some outdoor activity -- the beach
>or the zoo, and take a look around you.
>It is bad science to try to deny ordinary
>everyday facts.
When do people prefer go to the beach? And then what are they doing
there?
At the zoo I've seen them mostly at leisure, usually not visibly
sweating.
Gerrit
Gerrit Hanenburg
>> >>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
>>
>> >> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
>> >> do so regularly?
>>
>> >Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
>> >Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
>> >quintessential savannah dwellers.
>>
>> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
>> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
>> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
>> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
>> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
>
>"Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
>Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
>
>Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
>their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
Let's see:
Hylobates -> forest
Pongo -> forest
Gorilla -> forest
Pan -> forest
Find me that coastal ape please.
>Humans sweat while asleep, and burn more calories while sleeping than
>while watching TV, and exhale lots of water vapor while asleep,
>especially in dry air, very wasteful of water and salt, ridiculous on
>savanna or in rainforest.
>
>AFAIK HPG have widespread eccrine sweat glands & lice, orangutans
>lack widespread eccrines* and have no lice.
>(* uncertain, but haven't found any support for orangutans with
>widespread eccrine sweat glands, aside from volar surfaces).
>
>Therefore IMO Orangutans must have left the coasts earlier than HPG,
>and wasteful salt/water sweating has been selected out. Chimps and
>gorillas are still undergoing this, and humans as well, though
>technology/trade has suspended selection, due to stuff like gatorade
>availability for joggers.
>
>I'm certain that many mammals are capable of eccrine sweating,
>especially on the volar surfaces (palms, soles). The all-over eccrine
>sweating humans is quite wasteful, and without supporting technology/
>trade, would result in strong selection for near-seashore living (but
>obviously not full-time aquatic habitat).
Tell me another story.
Gerrit
nickname
wrote:
They get salt from rotting wood, per one article. Were the group VIII
members low on salt when near sample 2?
(Assuming sample 2 was high in salt)
I doubt they collect it for later or overconsume it.
DDeden
nickname
wrote:
> nickname <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
>
> >> >> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
> >> >> do so regularly?
>
> >> >Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
> >> >Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
> >> >quintessential savannah dwellers.
>
> >> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
> >> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
> >> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
> >> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
> >> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
>
> >"Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
> >Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
>
> >Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
> >their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
>
> Let's see:
> Hylobates -> forest
> Pongo -> forest
> Gorilla -> forest
> Pan -> forest
>
> Find me that coastal ape please.
Look in the mirror. Haw far are you from salt and water right now? 100
meters?
Humans are the most recent emigrants from the seashore coastal
habitat, and still suffer from salt imbalance, too much or too little.
Extant apes are inland forest inhabiting, their ancestors ~15ma were
coastal forest inhabiting (not open beach apes). I include the Rift
and river systems near the seas, anywhere with tidal effects.
>
>
>
> >Humans sweat while asleep, and burn more calories while sleeping than
> >while watching TV, and exhale lots of water vapor while asleep,
> >especially in dry air, very wasteful of water and salt, ridiculous on
> >savanna or in rainforest.
>
> >AFAIK HPG have widespread eccrine sweat glands & lice, orangutans
> >lack widespread eccrines* and have no lice.
> >(* uncertain, but haven't found any support for orangutans with
> >widespread eccrine sweat glands, aside from volar surfaces).
>
> >Therefore IMO Orangutans must have left the coasts earlier than HPG,
> >and wasteful salt/water sweating has been selected out. Chimps and
> >gorillas are still undergoing this, and humans as well, though
> >technology/trade has suspended selection, due to stuff like gatorade
> >availability for joggers.
>
> >I'm certain that many mammals are capable of eccrine sweating,
> >especially on the volar surfaces (palms, soles). The all-over eccrine
> >sweating humans is quite wasteful, and without supporting technology/
> >trade, would result in strong selection for near-seashore living (but
> >obviously not full-time aquatic habitat).
>
> Tell me another story.
>
> Gerrit
Done did bro.
DDeden
Marc Verhaegen
>> Pongo -> forest
>> Gorilla -> forest
>> Pan -> forest
>> Find me that coastal ape please.
this man apparently thinks that evolving is impossible
he has never heard of adaptation or parallelism
in simple words for simple minds:
- monkey = pure forest = +-small, fast, pronograde, long tail, narrow body
- hominoids differ from monkeys: larger, tail loss, vertical trunk, broad
thorax etc.: can't be explained by pure branch running
- all these features suggest swamp forests = wading on 2 feet in swamp +
hanging on arms on branches above the swamp etc.
confirmed by fossils:
- Heliopith (Afropith) 18 Ma found in coastal sediments (S.Tethys)
- Austriacopith (Griphopith) 18 Ma idem (N.Tethys)
- Moroto 19 Ma = vertical trunk
- early apes in Eurasia = crossed Tethys sea
> Look in the mirror. Haw far are you from salt and water right now? 100
> meters?
> Humans are the most recent emigrants from the seashore coastal
> habitat, and still suffer from salt imbalance, too much or too little.
> Extant apes are inland forest inhabiting, their ancestors ~15ma were
> coastal forest inhabiting (not open beach apes). I include the Rift
> and river systems near the seas, anywhere with tidal effects.
these savanna fanatics will never get it, DD
they reason:
- apes = fur, quadrupedal = live in forests
- humans = no fur, bipedal = live on the ground
therefore, leaving the forest & running on the ground explains why we are
bipedal ... :-D
nickname
Here's more:
African apes and humans have highest abundance of eccrine glands.
(Schwatz, The Red Ape)
Proliferation of eccrine glands and relative hair reduction are shared
with living hominoids, though humans carry these traits further
(Montagna 1972).
I suspect the following relate more to armpit eccrine distribution
than whole body eccrine distribution:
http://books.google.com/books?id=K6XZOOinwPAC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=%22orangutan+eccrine%22&source=web&ots=vAItH-s_Ry&sig=BQIOoLTF7Cy2XlqrWv-5St5n_C4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Eccrine gland abundance comparing great apes
http://books.google.com/books?id=DL_KQPX3AmIC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=%22orangutan+eccrine%22&source=web&ots=ERq6MtUflB&sig=Hem_hXUqfeOQ-lO-j3Am7lUnxCE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result
Eccrine gland abundance comparing monkeys to apes
Large axillary organ: Aprocrine glands in humans are mostly restricted
to the arm pit, where they comprise a “lavishly developed” axillary
organ while the gorilla, chimpanzee, and, “to a lesser extent,” the
orangutan also have an axillary organ (Montagna and Ellis, 1963). If
the axillary organ is a uniquely shared feature for great apes and
humans, a
larger size for humans and African apes could be derived or primitive
for large bodied hominoids while the orangutan size is derived. At
this time, there is no evidence to support the human and African ape
condition as a shared derived condition to the exclusion of the
orangutan.(Grehan, Mona Lisa Smile)
DDeden
rmacfarl
> ...
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=EoTXLpEX-h4C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22...
> (Montagu)
>
> DDeden- Hide quoted text -
>
Here's a link to a book published 11 years ago that specifically
repudiates sweating as evidence for AAH:
http://tinyurl.com/6fmefe
nickname
I wouldn't know, I've never read that book (or Montagu's). What's it
say exactly?
DDeden
Rick Wagler
A member of the College of Cardinals has never read
the Bible??!! Scandalous!!!!!
Rick Wagler
nickname
> "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Spiz, another patient for you...
nickname
yeah, bizarre.
-tree kangaroos
-savanna kangaroos
-tree sloths
-ground sloths
yeah, the savanna must be the answer ;)
now waiting for the genius comeback "but whales aren't bipeds!"
DDeden
rmacfarl
Why don't you ask Elaine? She's a semi-regular on Yahoo AAT isn't she?
nickname
Because she didn't say "Here's a link to a book published 11 years ago
that specifically
repudiates sweating as evidence for AAH:
http://tinyurl.com/6fmefe ", you did.
DDeden
rmacfarl
No, she just *wrote the book*...
nickname
but not your sentence.
Marc Verhaegen
>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=EoTXLpEX-h4C&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22...
>>> (Montagu)
SF:
>> Here's a link to a book published 11 years ago that specifically
>> repudiates sweating as evidence for AAH: http://tinyurl.com/6fmefe
sweat = water + sodium = rare in savannas
sealions on land sweat abundantly = sea = water + salt
savanna mammals rarely sweat
Of all mammals, man has the highest sweat production (Newman 1970).
(uncertain, eg, fur seals sweat thermoactively through abundant eccrine
glands (on their naked hind flippers) when they are overheated on land
(G.A.Bartholomew in McFarland et al.1979 p.773 --MV)
Montagna (1965) says: ŚSweating is an enigma that amounts to a major
biological blunder; it depletes the body not only of water, but also of
sodium and essential electrolytesą.
But sweating is only one of the strategies mammals have evolved to prevent
overheating. Many small mammals - such as rodents, marsupials and cats - use
saliva instead of sweat for thermoregulation, spreading it over the more
sparsely haired areas of the skin so that in evaporating it cools the body.
Some larger mammals - such as dogs - reduce their body temperature by
panting; others, like horses and cattle, sweat; sheep do both. But the
maximum water loss per unit of skin surface in these species is always much
smaller than in humans (Newman 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen pp.54,73,83).
Although camels sweat, they have adapted to their arid environment by
reducing water loss to a minimum; they do this by allowing their body
temperature to rise during the day; the heat thus stored is given up at
night without any expenditure of water. African hunting dogs (which, like
dogs, do not sweat and do not salivate, and, unlike dogs, do not even pant)
use the same strategy: they conserve water both by hiding in holes during
the day and by allowing their body temperature to reach a level which in
humans would be fatal, around 42°C (Kanwisher 1977).
Phil Nicholls
<m_ver...@skynet.be> wrote:
>But sweating is only one of the strategies mammals have evolved to prevent
>overheating. Many small mammals - such as rodents, marsupials and cats - use
>saliva instead of sweat for thermoregulation, spreading it over the more
>sparsely haired areas of the skin so that in evaporating it cools the body.
>Some larger mammals - such as dogs - reduce their body temperature by
>panting; others, like horses and cattle, sweat; sheep do both. But the
>maximum water loss per unit of skin surface in these species is always much
>smaller than in humans (Newman 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen pp.54,73,83).
>Although camels sweat, they have adapted to their arid environment by
>reducing water loss to a minimum; they do this by allowing their body
>temperature to rise during the day; the heat thus stored is given up at
>night without any expenditure of water. African hunting dogs (which, like
>dogs, do not sweat and do not salivate, and, unlike dogs, do not even pant)
>use the same strategy: they conserve water both by hiding in holes during
>the day and by allowing their body temperature to reach a level which in
>humans would be fatal, around 42°C (Kanwisher 1977).
>Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined with low
>body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions and the
>least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat.
For your consideration
Primate models to study eccrine sweating
Reynaldo S. Elizond
Medical Sciences Program, Physiology Section, Indiana
University School of Medicine, Bloomington, Indiana
Keywords
primates • sweating • animal models
Abstract
The histochemistry and histology of the eccrine sweat
gland in the rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta) are
described. The histochemical distribution and
localization of enzymes and substrates are very similar
to those found in the human; innervation is
cholinergic. Active eccrine glands on the general body
surface average 136 glands/cm2. Above the thermal
neutral zone (TNZ), sweating is the major avenue for
heat loss and the role of panting in dissipating heat
is relatively insignificant. The intrahypothalamic
administration of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) suppresses
sweating and leads to an increase in core temperature.
A linear relation is found between local sweat rates on
the general body surface and clamped hypothalamic
temperature. Studies also provide direct support for
the concept that brain temperature and skin temperature
interact additively in the control of sweating in
higher primates. The functional characteristics of
eccrine sweating in the patas monkey (Erythocebus) are
qualitatively similar to those in the rhesus monkey.
The patas monkey maintains a relatively constant rectal
temperature (37.6-38.4°C) when equilibrated to a wide
range of ambient temperaures of 15-40°C. Eccrine
sweating is the main effector system for heat
dissipation above the TNZ. We emphasize here that
evaporative heat loss that is due to sweating is
related to both mean skin and mean body temperature and
at 40°C is 40% higher than that recorded from the
rhesus monkey. These results indicate that the patas
monkey, because of its high sweating capacity and other
similarities with the human eccrine system, is a most
appropriate animal model for comparative studies of
eccrine sweat gland function in primates in general.
----------------------------------------
The Patas Monkey (Erythrocebus patas) is a
ground-dwelling monkey distributed over West Africa,
and into East Africa. It is the only species classified
in the genus Erythrocebus. The Patas Monkey avoids
dense woodlands and lives in more open savanna and
semi-deserts. [wikipedia]
nickname
and west African coasts.
A map at this site showed a large tract of Atlantic coast as part of
their territory, but now I can't pull up the map.
http://www.zoo.org/educate/fact_sheets/savana/patas.htm
Patas monkey: Atlantic coast, may have been more coastal (Atlantic,
Mediterranean) in past, perhaps Barbary macaques outcompeted them in
the north?
nickname
http://www.zoo.org/factsheets/patas_monkey/patas.html
The Sahara was much moister a few thousand years ago, so patas monkeys
were probably living at seaside along Atlantic and possibly
Mediterranean coasts before the drier climate pushed them more towards
the tropics.
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> But sweating is only one of the strategies mammals have evolved to prevent
>>>> overheating. Many small mammals - such as rodents, marsupials and cats -
>>>> use
>>>> saliva instead of sweat for thermoregulation, spreading it over the more
>>>> sparsely haired areas of the skin so that in evaporating it cools the body.
>>>> Some larger mammals - such as dogs - reduce their body temperature by
>>>> panting; others, like horses and cattle, sweat; sheep do both. But the
>>>> maximum water loss per unit of skin surface in these species is always much
>>>> smaller than in humans (Newman 1970; Schmidt-Nielsen pp.54,73,83).
>>>> Although camels sweat, they have adapted to their arid environment by
>>>> reducing water loss to a minimum; they do this by allowing their body
>>>> temperature to rise during the day; the heat thus stored is given up at
>>>> night without any expenditure of water. African hunting dogs (which, like
>>>> dogs, do not sweat and do not salivate, and, unlike dogs, do not even pant)
>>>> use the same strategy: they conserve water both by hiding in holes during
>>>> the day and by allowing their body temperature to reach a level which in
>>>> humans would be fatal, around 42°C (Kanwisher 1977).
>>>> Of all the available strategies, human eccrine sweating combined with low
>>>> body temperature is the least well adapted to savannah conditions and the
>>>> least likely to have evolved in that type of habitat.
SF:
>>> For your consideration
>>> Primate models to study eccrine sweating
>>> Reynaldo S. Elizond
yes, patas are very fat & naked & run on 2 legs after kudus...
Schmidt-Nielsen p.99
sweat glands/cm2 max.sweat g/m2/hr
sheep 290 32
Eur.cattle 1000 588
Hs 150 2000
patas 136 ?
>>> The Patas Monkey (Erythrocebus patas) is a
>>> ground-dwelling monkey distributed over West Africa,
>>> and into East Africa. It is the only species classified
>>> in the genus Erythrocebus. The Patas Monkey avoids
>>> dense woodlands and lives in more open savanna and
>>> semi-deserts. [wikipedia]
DD:
>> and west African coasts.
>> A map at this site showed a large tract of Atlantic coast as part of
>> their territory, but now I can't pull up the
>> map.http://www.zoo.org/educate/fact_sheets/savana/patas.htm
DD:
> http://www.zoo.org/factsheets/patas_monkey/patas.html
> The Sahara was much moister a few thousand years ago, so patas monkeys
> were probably living at seaside along Atlantic and possibly
> Mediterranean coasts before the drier climate pushed them more towards
> the tropics.
DD:
>> Patas monkey: Atlantic coast, may have been more coastal (Atlantic,
>> Mediterranean) in past, perhaps Barbary macaques outcompeted them in
>> the north?
Morphology and distribution of sweat glands in the Cape fur seal,
Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Carnivora : Otariidae)
LS Rotherham, M van der Merwe, MN Bester & WH Oosthuizen 2005
Austr.J.Zool.53:295300
The present study examined whether sweat glands are present in the skin of
the Cape fur seal, Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus. Sweat glands have an
important role in thermoregulation; the presence or absence of sweat glands
in the fur-covered and naked skin areas of the Cape fur seal was
investigated using standard histological procedures and light and scanning
electron microscopy. Sweat glands were present in both fur-covered and naked
skin areas. The skin layers in the naked skin areas were thicker than those
in the fur-covered areas, presumably to protect them against abrasions in
the absence of hair. The density of apocrine sweat glands did not differ
among the body regions; however, both apocrine and eccrine sweat glands were
larger in naked skin areas than in fur-covered areas. This increased size of
the glands suggests a more active role for the glands in the naked skin
areas, and a higher heat-loss capability through evaporative cooling in
these body regions.
No doubt SFs see sealions running after kudus.
Phil Nicholls
Logical fallacy alert: Strawman
Your failure to deal with the the data presented to you
is noted.
Conjecture, lacking evidence. How about dealing with
there current adaptation, which contradicts your
statements about sweating and the savanna.
>Morphology and distribution of sweat glands in the Cape fur seal,
>Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Carnivora : Otariidae)
>LS Rotherham, M van der Merwe, MN Bester & WH Oosthuizen 2005
>Austr.J.Zool.53:295300
>
>The present study examined whether sweat glands are present in the skin of
>the Cape fur seal, Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus. Sweat glands have an
>important role in thermoregulation; the presence or absence of sweat glands
>in the fur-covered and naked skin areas of the Cape fur seal was
>investigated using standard histological procedures and light and scanning
>electron microscopy. Sweat glands were present in both fur-covered and naked
>skin areas. The skin layers in the naked skin areas were thicker than those
>in the fur-covered areas, presumably to protect them against abrasions in
>the absence of hair. The density of apocrine sweat glands did not differ
>among the body regions; however, both apocrine and eccrine sweat glands were
>larger in naked skin areas than in fur-covered areas. This increased size of
>the glands suggests a more active role for the glands in the naked skin
>areas, and a higher heat-loss capability through evaporative cooling in
>these body regions.
Now if fur seals just walked bipedally and hard large
brains, you might have something.
>No doubt SFs see sealions running after kudus.
Logical Fallacy Alter: Strawman (again -- gee, you
really like that one).
The signiture event that separates hominds for pongids
in the fossil record is the emergence of bipedal
locomotion. Please note that seal, sea lions, whales
and the other aquatic mammals you like to bring into
your arguements in such a piecemeal fashion are anot
bipeds.
Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
manner, to exploit scattered resources at the
peripheral areas of open forests and savanna. Again,
walking, not running. Gathering, not hunting.
Now unless you know of some bipedal seals, I am
assuming that seals use thermoregulatory sweating when
they are on land, yes? Possibly because they are not
adapted to moving on land so when they are on land they
are using a lot more energy that when they are in water
and therefore require thermoregulation when on land.
.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 21-08-2008 01:34, in artikel 8r8pa4tn4ef41jaau...@4ax.com,
Phil Nicholls <pan...@yahoo.com> schreef:
Paul Crowley
news:8r8pa4tn4ef41jaau...@4ax.com...
> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
> manner,
So A'piths and earlier hominids
were good at walking?
This is typical of Standard PA
nonsense.
Paul.
Phil Nicholls
<m_ver...@skynet.be> wrote:
>savanna fool thinks that because seals don't walk on 2 legs, AAT is wrong:
Thank you Marc, for demonstrating that any attempt to
respond to you is a waste of effort.
You are a "true believer". You are more interested in
your own dogma than science.
rmacfarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, DD, unlike you, I have read the book. It was about 5 years ago,
it was from the library so I no longer have it, it was a load of crap,
and it is possible but unlikely that my memory is faulty. Anyway the
question is up on AAT now so Elaine has the chance to confirm that she
did specifically repudiate sweating as evidence of AAH in her 1998
book, which is my very clear recollection.
What's your problem DD? Scared of what you might find? Why do you
think I would care either way anyway?
Jeez, you are a witless tit...
rmacfarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
From the Yahoo AAT group today:
"
Re: [AAT] sweat glands in the Cape fur seal
----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Verhaegen
To: A...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Subject: FW: [AAT] sweat glands in the Cape fur seal
Sweating question. Thirty-odd years ago, I speculated whether salty
sweat might have been a device for excreting excess salt. That was
based on ignorance and I specifically wthdrew it decades ago, and
quoted Elizondo and others as the sources of convincing evidence that
we are not the only primates that employ eccrine sweating for cooling,
although previous to Elizondo it had been categorically stated -
e.g.by Montagna - that apes do not.
The patas is clear evidence that the conventional theory about our
naked skin - that we had to become naked for the sweat to be able to
evaporate for cooling purposes - is unsustainable.
Elaine
"
Marc Verhaegen
>> savanna fool thinks that because seals don't walk on 2 legs, AAT is wrong:
PN:
> Thank you Marc, for demonstrating that any attempt to
> respond to you is a waste of effort.
please inform a bit fefore trying to say something on a subject
nickname
And on that note, I depart from SAP, older.
DDeden
RichTravsky
> > >> >>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
> >
> > >> >> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
> > >> >> do so regularly?
> >
> > >> >Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
> > >> >Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
> > >> >quintessential savannah dwellers.
> >
> > >> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
> > >> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
> > >> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
> > >> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
> > >> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
> >
> > >"Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
> > >Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
> >
> > >Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
> > >their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
> >
> > Let's see:
> > Hylobates -> forest
> > Pongo -> forest
> > Gorilla -> forest
> > Pan -> forest
> >
> > Find me that coastal ape please.
Found it yet Dave?
RichTravsky
> Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
>
> (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> truckload of salt too!)
Uh, did you bother to read the article????
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 17, 9:12 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
> >
> >
> > > (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> > > truckload of salt too!)
> >
> > that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> > than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> > run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> > too much water. AATers vastly overstate human
> > need for water.
> >
> > Rick Wagler
>
> Amateurs are cautioned against drinking too much *freshwater* (lacks
Cite ->
> electrolytes found in seawater, coconuts, fruit), due to dilution of
> essential salts etc., a dangerous condition for strenuous activity.
> With poor olfaction, limited hearing and inability to see water
> underground, humans can walk over underground springs without even
"see water underground" :-D :-D
> knowing, while elephants stop and dig. (Elephants dig up underground
> water pipes.)
Claudius Denk
I agree. Note that these idiots never mention what benefit they
achieved from this "long distance walking" ability.
Marc Verhaegen
>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
>>> manner,
>> So A'piths and earlier hominids
>> were good at walking?
>> This is typical of Standard PA
>> nonsense.
> I agree. Note that these idiots never mention what benefit they
> achieved from this "long distance walking" ability.
tourism?
Paul Crowley
news:fc4e857e-8f5f-4046...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
And all predators are air-brushed
out of existence.
While the AAT stuff is nonsense,
these guys have no right to criticise it.
They have absolutely nothing to say.
Paul.
Rick Wagler
"Marc Verhaegen" <m_ver...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:C4DA392B.13ABF%m_ver...@skynet.be...
right....chained to the waterside or to the grove of trees
that had to be defended to the death. But we aren.t that
animal. This ranks with Crowley's being unable to fathom
what use human intelligence could possibly be. Bit too much
self reflection there....
Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
The Sight-Seeing Ape Theory
Claudius Denk
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Exactly. That's why they like AAT, it draws attention away from the
vapidness of their own non-hypothesis.
Claudius Denk
> "Marc Verhaegen" <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote in message
Surreal.
Rick Wagler
Surreal.
* So we don't know what the word "surreal" means either....
* Surreal is inventing 8MM year old a'piths to rectify a
* perceived lack of data in an other wise vapid "hypothesis"
* Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Why don't you explain to us how your efficient walking ape hypothesis
explains the selective origins of the most communally territorialistic
species ever seen on this planet. Go ahead, provide us the details,
you nitwit. If nothing else your explanation should be good for a few
laughs.
Rick Wagler
* Are they?
Go ahead, provide us the details,
you nitwit. If nothing else your explanation should be good for a few
laughs.
* I'm required to accept your grossly overstated premise?
* Sorry, that's not how things go.
* Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > > SF:
You have no dispute with my premise. Right? (Answer the question you
evasive twit.)
Paul Crowley
> "Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
>>>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
>>>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
>>>>> manner,
>>
>>>> So A'piths and earlier hominids
>>>> were good at walking?
>>>> This is typical of Standard PA
>>>> nonsense.
>>
>>> I agree. Note that these idiots never mention what benefit they
>>> achieved from this "long distance walking" ability.
>>
>> tourism?
>>
> And what kind of animal would we be if we couldn't?
Go back to the statement by Phil Nicholls.
He thinks that bipedalism developed for a
particular reason: "walking for moderately
long distances in an energetically efficient
manner".
Do you agree with his 'logic'?
> Oh,
> right....chained to the waterside or to the grove of trees
> that had to be defended to the death.
Pretty much. What else can be deduced
from the anatomy?
> But we aren.t that animal.
Firstly, we are talking about A'piths.
Secondly, modern H/G are not so
different. (Antelope-chasing is
essentially a PA fantasy.)
Paul.
Rick Wagler
* Confused by the words "are they" followed by '?", I see....
* Rick Wagler
Rick Wagler
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
news:jS7tk.26851$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
> "Rick Wagler" <taxi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:If0tk.42602$hx.7882@pd7urf3no...
>
>> "Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
>>>>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
>>>>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
>>>>>> manner,
>>>
>>>>> So A'piths and earlier hominids
>>>>> were good at walking?
>>>>> This is typical of Standard PA
>>>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>>> I agree. Note that these idiots never mention what benefit they
>>>> achieved from this "long distance walking" ability.
>>>
>>> tourism?
>>>
>> And what kind of animal would we be if we couldn't?
>
> Go back to the statement by Phil Nicholls.
> He thinks that bipedalism developed for a
> particular reason: "walking for moderately
> long distances in an energetically efficient
> manner".
>
> Do you agree with his 'logic'?
>
Yes. Ethnography, anatomy and physiology do
not contradict.
>> Oh,
>> right....chained to the waterside or to the grove of trees
>> that had to be defended to the death.
>
> Pretty much. What else can be deduced
> from the anatomy?
>
>> But we aren.t that animal.
>
> Firstly, we are talking about A'piths.
> Secondly, modern H/G are not so
> different. (Antelope-chasing is
> essentially a PA fantasy.)
>
And a fantasy of anthropologists and others who
have actually observed it. But the sun was very hot....
Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jackass.
Claudius Denk
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jS7tk.26851$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >news:If0tk.42602$hx.7882@pd7urf3no...
>
> >> "Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
> >>>>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
> >>>>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
> >>>>>> manner,
>
> >>>>> So A'piths and earlier hominids
> >>>>> were good at walking?
> >>>>> This is typical of Standard PA
> >>>>> nonsense.
>
> >>>> I agree. Note that these idiots never mention what benefit they
> >>>> achieved from this "long distance walking" ability.
>
> >>> tourism?
>
> >> And what kind of animal would we be if we couldn't?
>
> > Go back to the statement by Phil Nicholls.
> > He thinks that bipedalism developed for a
> > particular reason: "walking for moderately
> > long distances in an energetically efficient
> > manner".
>
> > Do you agree with his 'logic'?
>
> Yes. Ethnography, anatomy and physiology do
> not contradict.
Answer the question you evasive jackass.
>
> >> Oh,
> >> right....chained to the waterside or to the grove of trees
> >> that had to be defended to the death.
>
> > Pretty much. What else can be deduced
> > from the anatomy?
>
> >> But we aren.t that animal.
>
> > Firstly, we are talking about A'piths.
> > Secondly, modern H/G are not so
> > different. (Antelope-chasing is
> > essentially a PA fantasy.)
>
> And a fantasy of anthropologists and others who
> have actually observed it. But the sun was very hot....
You whackjobs don't even have anything as good as AAT.
rmacfarl
What really burns you Jim, is the knowledge that *you* sure as Hell
don't...
Claudius Denk
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was hoping you were going to explain to us how hominids long-
distance walked themselves into being the most communally
territorialistic species known to exist.
You're not fun.
rmacfarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, no, no Jim - you're here to entertain me, not vice versa...
Paul Crowley
>>> "Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
>>>>>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
>>>>>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
>>>>>>> manner,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So A'piths and earlier hominids
>>>>>> were good at walking?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is typical of Standard PA
>>>>>> nonsense.
>>> And what kind of animal would we be if we couldn't?
>> Go back to the statement by Phil Nicholls.
>> He thinks that bipedalism developed for a
>> particular reason: "walking for moderately
>> long distances in an energetically efficient
>> manner".
>>
>> Do you agree with his 'logic'?
>>
>
> Yes. Ethnography, anatomy and physiology do
> not contradict.
Simply false. All that we know of the
anatomy of early hominids (such as A'piths)
tells us that they were very POOR at walking
-- having short legs, something like chimps.
(I have no idea what you imagine is the
relevance of 'ethnography').
That is a simple and observable fact. Yet
dumb PA types (like yourself and Nicholls)
can't absorb it, nor deal with it.
Firstly, you have no idea what brought about
bipedalism, and you thrash around for any
idea. Having (at length) got one, you are
loath to let it go.
Secondly, you like to see you own taxon as
Superman (naturally always forgetting the
women and children). That requires that you
never to admit to any deficiency, such as
being poor at walking -- no matter how
obvious it is in the fossil record.
Paul.
Rick Wagler
"What kind of animal would **we** be
if we couldn't? Understand what "we"
means? Of course bipedalism did not
emerge as a fully perfected thing immediately.
Nothing ever does. But your insistence on
its complete lack of utility in the genus Homo
is ludicrous.
As for the women and children.....your trashing
of women as useless, helpless dead weights
with children who drop dead at the brush of a
feather .....When Geronimo led the last great
breakout from the Apache Indian Reservation in
1885 be had 42 warriors and over 90 women
and children. They then stayed on the loose for
over a year in some of the roughest country you
can imagine. Mostly on foot. I don't know how
an apache woman with a child would compare
to an erectus woman and child but both would
appear to be very capable and not the pathetic
useless creatures of your chauvinist imagination.
Rick Wagler
Claudius Denk
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> Rick Wagler wrote:
> >>> "Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com>
> >>>>>>> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
> >>>>>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
> >>>>>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
> >>>>>>> manner,
>
> >>>>>> So A'piths and earlier hominids
> >>>>>> were good at walking?
>
> >>>>>> This is typical of Standard PA
> >>>>>> nonsense.
> >>> And what kind of animal would we be if we couldn't?
> >> Go back to the statement by Phil Nicholls.
> >> He thinks that bipedalism developed for a
> >> particular reason: "walking for moderately
> >> long distances in an energetically efficient
> >> manner".
>
> >> Do you agree with his 'logic'?
>
> > Yes. Ethnography, anatomy and physiology do
> > not contradict.
>
> Simply false. All that we know of the
> anatomy of early hominids (such as A'piths)
> tells us that they were very POOR at walking
> -- having short legs, something like chimps.
Well stated. Yes, as a matter of fact they maintained tree climbing
adaptations and were incapable of running. What were they good at?
Standing. How would this be useful? Well, firstly it would be useful
if they were collectively standing their ground against inmigrating
herds of food competitors. And it would be good for freeing their
hands for wielding rocks and sticks toward the same end.
> (I have no idea what you imagine is the
> relevance of 'ethnography').
I don't either.
>
> That is a simple and observable fact. Yet
> dumb PA types (like yourself and Nicholls)
> can't absorb it, nor deal with it.
I agree. This is all obvious stuff. This is an example of group-
think. They are trying to force the evidence to fit their
preconcieved notions. This is exactly the opposite of what a
scientists is supposed to do.
> Firstly, you have no idea what brought about
> bipedalism, and you thrash around for any
> idea. Having (at length) got one, you are
> loath to let it go.
Yes, it reminds me of the cutish behavior of global warming advocates.
> Secondly, you like to see you own taxon as
> Superman (naturally always forgetting the
> women and children). That requires that you
> never to admit to any deficiency, such as
> being poor at walking -- no matter how
> obvious it is in the fossil record.
They're just so careful to keep their thinking vague in the mistaken
belief that by so doing they can avoid refutation.
Claudius Denk
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
Uh . . .er? What are you trying to say?
> Of course bipedalism did not
> emerge as a fully perfected thing immediately.
> Nothing ever does.
Irrelevant. This is a rather obvious attempt to evade the issue.
> But your insistence on
> its complete lack of utility in the genus Homo
> is ludicrous.
Paul never stated any such thing you straw-baiting nitwit.
> As for the women and children.....your trashing
> of women as useless, helpless dead weights
> with children who drop dead at the brush of a
> feather .....When Geronimo led the last great
> breakout from the Apache Indian Reservation in
> 1885 be had 42 warriors and over 90 women
> and children. They then stayed on the loose for
> over a year in some of the roughest country you
> can imagine. Mostly on foot. I don't know how
> an apache woman with a child would compare
> to an erectus woman and child but both would
> appear to be very capable and not the pathetic
> useless creatures of your chauvinist imagination.
Don't you think it's kind of silly to draw comparisons between
American Indians (and their environment/habitat) and A'pith (and their
environment/habitat)?
Paul Crowley
>>>>> "Phil Nicholls" <pan...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion developed
>>>>>>>>> NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
>>>>>>>>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
>>>>>>>>> manner,
> "What kind of animal would **we** be
> if we couldn't? Understand what "we"
> means?
I am saying _nothing_ about "**we**".
We are talking about the reasons for
bipedalism in EARLY hominids, such as
A'piths.
> Of course bipedalism did not
> emerge as a fully perfected thing immediately.
Another ridiculous point. The A'pith
form of bipedalism lasted for a few
million years. It was NOT some kind
of temporary intermediate stage, while
the taxon was somehow waiting for full
perfection to develop.
> Nothing ever does.
There is nothing in this 'nothing'.
Your evolutionary 'thinking' is
primitive -- and hopelessly wrong.
No one looking at A'piths 3 mya could
have forecast "better efficiency" --
anymore than you could make a similar
forecast for any species alive now.
> But your insistence on
> its complete lack of utility in the genus Homo
> is ludicrous.
Naturally you have to invent a
strawman. I have said nothing like
this. Modern humans may well have
an ability " . . . for walking for
moderately long distances in an
energetically efficient manner . . "
-- although I would never use such
words, nor regard any such 'ability'
as significant. No one says such
things about any other species.
> As for the women and children.....your trashing
> of women as useless, helpless dead weights
> with children who drop dead at the brush of a
> feather .....
More strawmen. All I do is emphasise
the manifest vulnerability of human
infants and children to predators.
Name another species remotely as
vulnerable.
You still have not admitted that this
statement by Phil Nicholls is nonsense.
" . . Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion
developed NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
manner . . ."
Paul.
Rick Wagler
> Rick Wagler wrote:
>
> You still have not admitted that this
> statement by Phil Nicholls is nonsense.
>
> " . . Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion
> developed NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
> manner . . ."
>
>
various types of locomotion in chimps amounts to what?
No I will not admit that Phil is wrong since he is most likely
correct.
Rick Wagler
PS You and Jim marching in lock step. The world
of conventional PA trembles. Chauvinism and fractured
logic rules!
Claudius Denk
> "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gYYtk.26883$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...> Rick Wagler wrote:
>
> > You still have not admitted that this
> > statement by Phil Nicholls is nonsense.
>
> > " . . Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion
> > developed NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
> > moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
> > manner . . ."
>
> And your refutation of the studies of the energetics of
> various types of locomotion in chimps amounts to what?
Absurd, this is like Marc arguing that we would have to refute the
supposition that humans can swim faster than apes to disprove his
silly aquatic notions. This confirms what I've been saying for a long
time, there is hardly any difference between AAT and conventional
theory. They both employ the same misguided logic and they both base
their theoretical thinking in a Peter Pan reality along the lines that
it can be imagined it, therefore, must be true. And any facts that
get in the way can be conveniently ignored.
> No I will not admit that Phil is wrong since he is most likely
> correct.
Nichols is cornered. He can't respond. (Same with McDonald.) All he
can do is pretend to not have seen the questions. That's the reason
these retards talk about killfiles. They new going in that they'd
lose the discussion and so they are looking for the back door--
pretending to not have seen the question.
Rick Wagler
* Jim they don't fear you. They laugh at you. Everybody does.
* Rick Wagler
Paul Crowley
>> You still have not admitted that this
>> statement by Phil Nicholls is nonsense.
>>
>> " . . Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion
>> developed NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
>> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
>> manner . . ."
>>
> And your refutation of the studies of the energetics of
> various types of locomotion in chimps amounts to what?
> No I will not admit that Phil is wrong since he is most likely
> correct.
And this, folks, is modern 'science' at work.
On the one hand we have numerous A'pith (and
earlier) fossils. ALL have short legs, and
everyone agrees that they were incapable of
the modern H.sap striding motion, and that, in
effect, they would have been bloody awful at
" . . walking for moderately long distances
in an energetically efficient manner . . ."
On the other hand, we have PA types, without
the first clue as to the cause of bipedalism
and desperate to believe that their ancestors
were supermen.
Which 'facts' will come to dominate the 'minds'
of the said PA types?
Paul.
Makouli
[...]
> Simply false. All that we know of the
> anatomy of early hominids (such as A'piths)
> tells us that they were very POOR at walking
> -- having short legs, something like chimps.
> (I have no idea what you imagine is the
> relevance of 'ethnography').
Jeez! I just about missed this one:
"I have no idea what you imagine is the
relevance of 'ethnography."
Pauly --08/29/2008
[the rest of Pauls' grasp of anthro]
> Paul.
==========================
"So why did all the 'savanna hominids' go
into extinction?" Pauly --03/23/2008
Makouli
[BS]
> You still have not admitted that this
> statement by Phil Nicholls is nonsense.
>
> " . . Bipedalism is a terrestral form of locomtion
> developed NOT for chasing down kudus but for walking for
> moderately long distances in an energetically efficient
> manner . . ."
That's because it isn't. Looking for ridiculousness?
Here's some:
"The fat is to keep the infant warm
when put down to sleep on its own
-- especially at night." Pauly 9/7/07
> Paul.
=================================
"I would not use 'the published literature'
for toilet paper." Paul Crowley --11/02/06
Claudius Denk
Macfarlane is so desperate to evade the issue he can't even
acknowledge my words.
Paul Crowley
>> All that we know of the
>> anatomy of early hominids (such as A'piths)
>> tells us that they were very POOR at walking
>> -- having short legs, something like chimps.
>
> Well stated. Yes, as a matter of fact they maintained tree climbing
> adaptations
This is nonsense. They'd have been competing
with chimps, and following an identical life-
style to chimps. There is no room for two
species in an identical niche.
> and were incapable of running. What were they good at?
> Standing.
Hardly 'standing' as such. They just did
not need much mobility. They were stocky
and had great upper-body strength.
> How would this be useful? Well, firstly it would be useful
> if they were collectively standing their ground against inmigrating
> herds of food competitors. And it would be good for freeing their
> hands for wielding rocks and sticks toward the same end.
This 'inmigrating herds' is both bad English
and nonsensical biology. They had to be
good at wielding weapons (clubs, and maybe
spears) against other hominids. Why do you
find that so difficult? Chimps fight their
own species (often to the death). So do humans.
Why should the intermediate species be so
different?
In another post you write:
> > > Did anything you read give you any details on how a
> > > diminutive, slow moving, creature like A'pith managed
> > > survive predation from sabertoothed cats and bear-sized
> > > hyena?
Yet you yourself gives no reasonable answer
to the problem of predation. It is a
horendous one -- if you see the species being
on the African mainland. Large groups of
hominids would be very easy pickings,
especially at night.
Paul.
Claudius Denk
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >> All that we know of the
> >> anatomy of early hominids (such as A'piths)
> >> tells us that they were very POOR at walking
> >> -- having short legs, something like chimps.
>
> > Well stated. Yes, as a matter of fact they maintained tree climbing
> > adaptations
>
> This is nonsense. They'd have been competing
> with chimps, and following an identical life-
> style to chimps. There is no room for two
> species in an identical niche.
Absurd. There were no competing species. They were all the same
species.
>
> > and were incapable of running. What were they good at?
>
> > Standing.
>
> Hardly 'standing' as such. They just did
> not need much mobility. They were stocky
> and had great upper-body strength.
Vague. And you are avoiding the issue.
>
> > How would this be useful? Well, firstly it would be useful
>
> > if they were collectively standing their ground against inmigrating
> > herds of food competitors. And it would be good for freeing their
> > hands for wielding rocks and sticks toward the same end.
>
> This 'inmigrating herds' is both bad English
> and nonsensical biology. They had to be
> good at wielding weapons (clubs, and maybe
> spears) against other hominids.
Absurd.
> Why do you
> find that so difficult? Chimps fight their
> own species (often to the death).
Yes. And they don't use weapons to do this. But we're not talking
about chimps. We're talking about animals that evolved from chimps to
become the most communally territorialistic species that ever
existed. Rocks and sticks would be useful toward this end. The
biggest threat to their survival was the dry season. If they allowed
the fruit and vegetable resources in their treed habitat become
depleted then the opportunity seeking predators would come flooding
into their isolated community and, possibly, massacre the whole
community during the depths of the dry season.
The communities that survived these very stark selective factors were
the ones that were more human.
> So do humans.
> Why should the intermediate species be so
> different?
There's no selection in your scenario. Chimps fighting chimps is not
a scenario for why humans evolved. It's a sceanrio for why chimps
stayed chimps.
>
> In another post you write:
> > > > Did anything you read give you any details on how a
> > > > diminutive, slow moving, creature like A'pith managed
> > > > survive predation from sabertoothed cats and bear-sized
> > > > hyena?
>
> Yet you yourself gives no reasonable answer
> to the problem of predation.
Actually, predation is a very important part of the selective scenario
of my hypothesis. See my hyhpothesis for details.
> It is a
> horendous one -- if you see the species being
> on the African mainland. Large groups of
> hominids would be very easy pickings,
> especially at night.
Ever notice that lion and hyena can't climb trees?
RichTravsky
>
> DD:
> >> Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
> >> (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> >> truckload of salt too!)
>
> SF:
> > It's not need. It's the ability to find. And note
> > that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> > than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> > run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> > too much water. AATers vastly overstate human
> > need for water.
>
> We *very* correctly estimate the need for water:
>
> Water Economics
>
> Drinking water
> Among the commonest of mammalian adaptations to a hot, dry habitat is a
> minimal dependence on drinking water. Many small savannah and desert mammals
> (burrowing and nocturnal) do not drink at all. The same is true of some of
> the African ungulates such as the eland and the oryx (Taylor, 1970).
> Carnivores usually need to drink more because their diet consists of
> relatively large amounts of protein, which requires a lot of water for its
> excretion in the urine (Schmidt-Nielsen, 1979, p. 125). Yet in desert
> habitats even carnivores such as fennecs have the capacity to survive
> without drinking. Many arboreal primates such as langurs almost never drink
> because the moisture in their vegetarian diet is sufficient for their needs
> (Napier and Napier, 1985, p. 151). If the ancestors of human beings had left
> the forests and gone into more open environments, they would have evolved
> the capacity to become more conservative with water as a means of adapting
> to their habitat.
> Precisely the opposite it true. Humans, even without exercise and in
> temperate climates, have to drink much more than any other terrestrial
> mammal. Otherwise they would become susceptible to cystitis and other
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/msg/1ea478ea599c5540?dmode=source&hl=en
...
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
"Rich Travsky" <traRvs...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Humans are no long-distance species.
>>> Interesting what can be seen on the Discovery TV Channel. I saw a TV
episode about a nice little African bushman. He was running down some sort
of gazelle or antelope (apparently a perfectly healthy example). He just
kept running after the poor (4-legged) beast and he just kept running and
running and running. After about four hours of running in the mid-day sun,
he was able to simply walk up and toss a spear into the poor exhausted
beast. I presume that he then spent the rest of the day butchering it and
carrying it back. The bushman didn't seem to be the slightest bit fazed
by the whole process. All in a day's work for him I suppose.
...
>> Yes, very interesting, but it's about Bushmen, recently (after the
sapiens LCA) savanna-adapted humans, not about the majority of human beings.
You
> RECENTLY SAVANNA ADAPTED HUMANS???
WHY DO YOU SHOUT?? CAN'T YOU READ??
> So, humans CAN adapt to the savanna?
Why not IYO??
...
RichTravsky
> On Aug 17, 1:06 pm, Gerrit Hanenburg <g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>> > >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&em...
> >
> > >>>> (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> > >>>> truckload of salt too!)
> >
> > >>> that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> > >>> than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> > >>> run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> > >>> too much water.
> >
> > >> i.e. not enough salt in their bloodstream.
> > >> One death, and other casualties came
> > >> from this event:
> >
> > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6583677.stm
> > >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/apr/24/athletics.sport1
> >
> > >> " . . St John Ambulance said of the 5,032 people it treated, 73 went to
> > >> hospital as runners battled 21C temperatures at midday, equalling
> > >> the 1996 record. . ."
> >
> > >> You can also die simply from taking too
> > >> much water and not enough salt in ordinary
> > >> daily activity:
> >
> > >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3044502.stm
> >
> > >>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
> >
> > >> do so regularly?
> >
> > >Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
> > >Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
> > >quintessential savannah dwellers.
> >
> > And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
> > is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
> > more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
> > rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
> > Ecology and Behavior": 295).
>
> "Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
> Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
>
> Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
> their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
What coastal apes?
RichTravsky
>
> On Aug 18, 6:19 am, Gerrit Hanenburg <g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
> wrote:
> > nickname <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
> >
> > >> >> Do you sweat? How many other mammals
> > >> >> do so regularly?
> >
> > >> >Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
> > >> >Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
> > >> >quintessential savannah dwellers.
> >
> > >> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
> > >> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
> > >> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
> > >> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
> > >> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
> >
> > >"Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
> > >Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
> >
> > >Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
> > >their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
> >
> > Hylobates -> forest
> > Pongo -> forest
> > Gorilla -> forest
> > Pan -> forest
> >
> > Find me that coastal ape please.
>
> Look in the mirror. Haw far are you from salt and water right now? 100
> meters?
> Humans are the most recent emigrants from the seashore coastal
Evidence? ->
Marc Verhaegen
ancestors must have done that 200 ka
=
some fool thinks that because an american walks on the moon human ancestors
must have done that 200 ka
travsky boy, you're stupid, just stupid
______
Op 01-09-2008 06:48, in artikel 48BB7423...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
RichTravsky
> nickname wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 6:19 am, Gerrit Hanenburg <g.hanenb...@inter.nl.nomail.net>
> > > >> >>> AATers vastly overstate human need for water.
> > >
> > > >> >> do so regularly?
> > >
> > > >> >Equids for one. Horses are open country animals.
> > > >> >Allow me to point out the obvious. Zebras are
> > > >> >quintessential savannah dwellers.
> > >
> > > >> And don't forget the gorilla. George Schallers' observation at Kabara
> > > >> is illustrative: "I have observed animals lie in the direct sun for
> > > >> more than two hours, with beads of sweat forming on the upper lip and
> > > >> rivulets of it running down the chest". ("The Mountain Gorilla:
> > > >> Ecology and Behavior": 295).
> > >
> > > >"Gorillas of the Mist". Still waiting for "Mountain beavers of the
> > > >Mist" at the Point Reyes Nat'l Seashore.
> > >
> > > >Yes, gorillas and chimps have eccrine glands, not surprising since
> > > >their ancestors IMO were coastal apes LCA HPG.
> > >
> > > Let's see:
> > > Hylobates -> forest
> > > Pongo -> forest
> > > Gorilla -> forest
> > > Pan -> forest
> > >
> > > Find me that coastal ape please.
>
Well?
RichTravsky
>
> "nickname" <alas_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/us/16lance.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
> >
> > (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> > truckload of salt too!)
>
Evidently not.
RichTravsky
>
> nickname wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 17, 9:12 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > news:e71ea51b-5b74-4072...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > Endurance cyclist top water consumer!!
> > >
> > >
> > > > (Distance athletes don't need no water ??! I'll bet he's got a
> > > > truckload of salt too!)
> > >
> > > that amateur marathoners who take much longer
> > > than the professionals - about 2.5 hours - to
> > > run the full 26 miles are cautioned against drinking
> > > need for water.
> > >
> > > Rick Wagler
> >
> > Amateurs are cautioned against drinking too much *freshwater* (lacks
>
> Cite ->
Still waiting.
> > electrolytes found in seawater, coconuts, fruit), due to dilution of
> > essential salts etc., a dangerous condition for strenuous activity.
> > With poor olfaction, limited hearing and inability to see water
> > underground, humans can walk over underground springs without even
>
> "see water underground" :-D :-D
>
> > knowing, while elephants stop and dig. (Elephants dig up underground
> > water pipes.)
RichTravsky
> On Aug 27, 7:53 pm, rmacfarl <rmacf...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2:11 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 7:51 am, "Rick Wagler" <taxid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > > "Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message
Australopiths ranged over a good chunk of Africa - from south Africa up north
to Ethiopia and west to Chad. How do you think they did that, fly?
Claudius Denk
So do many plant and tree species. Did they also walk?
rmacfarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Save your metaphorical breath Rich - SAP's kitchen got a bit to hot
for DD & he's retreated back to the cool waters of AAT...
RichTravsky
So he *claims*...
RichTravsky
>
> some fool thinks that because a bushman runs down an antelope human
> ancestors must have done that 200 ka
Marc thinks humans only recently became able to run.
> =
> some fool thinks that because an american walks on the moon human ancestors
> must have done that 200 ka
Marc thinks you adapt to the moon.
> travsky boy, you're stupid, just stupid
Marc, you're just plain stupid.
Marc Verhaegen
>> some fool thinks that because a bushman runs down an antelope human
>> ancestors must have done that 200 ka
Savanna Fool too stupid to discern between running & endurance running:
Makouli
news:C4F34675.14260%m_ver...@skynet.be...
Some fools from Belgium are too stupid to format
their posts, don't appreciate the value of attributes,
and are too pig-headed to follow standard usenet
conventions.
=====================================
"Repeating imbecilities doesn't make
them true." Marco --04/21/2003
RichTravsky
Marc admits hominids can run!
RichTravsky
Plants have different distribution mechanisms. You should know this, Clod.
RichTravsky
No dispute.