Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: AAT falsifiable?

Expand Messages
  • m3dodds
    ... Its their problem ... I would simply reiterate: that the presence of a relatively large brain in human savanna dwellers proves the waterside hypotheses is
    Message 1 of 32 , Apr 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...> wrote:



      > >> Maasai = savanna = large brain, they say.
      > >> AATers reason that large brains support AAT, but
      > >> the presence of large brains in human savanna
      > >> populations suggests AAT thinking is wrong,
      > >> anti-AATers say.
      >
      > > If that is their only argument, I would suggest
      > > they go and lie down in a darkened room until
      > > normal brain function ... resumes.
      >
      > In fact, it is their only "argument".
      >
      > > The presence of a relatively large brain in human
      > > savanna dwellers, simply proves that the waterside
      > > hypotheses is correct. If the Maasai had originated
      > > on the open plain, they would not have a
      > > relatively large brain.
      >
      > Problem is: anti-AATers are convinced our ancestors
      > originated in the dry open plain: that is they believe
      > were the butchered bones & the ostrich egg
      > shells laid. :-D



      Its their problem ...
      I would simply reiterate: that the presence
      of a relatively large brain in human savanna
      dwellers proves the waterside hypotheses
      is correct ...

      The Maasai, it should be pointed out ...
      drink milk on a daily basis ... like the Mongols
      of central Asia have done for centuries (drinking
      milk has some health benefits).
      Somehow ... I cannot picture furry little short-
      legged a'piths 2.5 mya, chasing down bovines on
      the savanna to get their daily bowl of milk ...

      IMO modern man can make his home on the savanna
      but he neither lives like, or eats like a
      savanna animal ...



      > >>> Humans have a vertical spine ... walk upright
      > >>> and let the bones, take the weight.
      >
      > >> This is no law, m3d.
      > >> Of all bipeds only humans & penguins have vertical
      > >> spines AFAIK. All other bipeds run with +-horizontal
      > >> spines (human sprinters also run with
      > >> forward inclined spines).
      >
      > > Not a law ...
      > > but its easier on the muscles of the back
      > > (less back pain)
      >
      > Many patients suffering from backache walk with
      > less vertical backs.


      That is why I define it as having a relatively
      aligned posture.



      > > to maintain a relatively aligned upright
      > > posture
      >
      > A usual mistake IMO. It's not necessary to
      > stand vertical to reduce standing/walking/
      > running costs: ostriches etc.etc.have
      > horizontal spines.


      It is not a question of reducing costs, more
      of benefit to the individual ... muscles
      tire, bones don't.



      > > (the posture of
      > > sprinters ... could be another indication
      > > that humans are not natural born runners?)
      > > Possibly it is a lot easier for penguins
      > > to maintain an aligned upright posture
      > > out of the water (they don't bend in the
      > > middle) as they lack the long legs found
      > > in humans.
      >
      > Penguins need an aligned build (streamlined).
      > Humans don't need any more an aligned build.
      >
      > --marc

      Penguins are aligned in an out of water, humans
      are relatively aligned when swimming and when
      walking and standing.

      (streamlined - has to do with shape ... aligned
      - has to do with keeping the various bits and
      pieces in a line)


      ---m3d









      ----------------------------

      > Op 31-03-2008 13:32, m3dodds <dons3148@...> schreef:
      >
      >
      > >>>>>>>> AATers say that large brain, breathhold skills,
      > >>>>>>>> plantigrade feet, aligned body form, furlessness,
      > >>>>>>>> SC fat etc.etc. prove that AAT is correct, but
      > >>>>>>>> anti-AATers say that since all these features are
      > >>>>>>>> seen in humans today, and since modern humans are
      > >>>>>>>> not (semi)aquatic, these features do not
      > >>>>>>>> prove AAT.
      > >>>>>>>> This is serious objection IMO, which is diffucult
      > >>>>>>>> to answer.
      >
      > >>>>>>> Would tend to disagree (it is not difficult) ... only
      > >>>>>>> the first counts, the remainder are secondary (best
      > >>>>>>> left to AATers ... to tie themselves in knots
      > >>>>>>> questioning).
      > >>>>>>> Whereas the first is clear evidence for our waterside
      > >>>>>>> past. The onus is now on AATers to come up with an
      > >>>>>>> answer as to how a primate evolved a large brain and
      > >>>>>>> mastered iodine deficiency on the savanna (or wherever
      > >>>>>>> away from the shore, they think it happened ...)
      >
      > >>>>>> Well,
      > >>>>>> 1) savanna believers will say: there are humans with
      > >>>>>> large brain & iodine needs who run after kudus, so large
      > >>>>>> brains & high iodine needs don't contradict the savanna theory,
      > >>>>>> 2) if AAT is wrong, that doesn't automatically prove the
      > >>>>>> savanna theory: other scenarios are also theoreticallly
      > >>>>>> also possible.
      >
      > >>>>> Yes.
      > >>>>> There are humans today with large brains and iodine
      > >>>>> needs, who do run after kudus on the savanna, but
      > >>>>> they too are the descendants of a waterside
      > >>>>> precursor.
      >
      > >>>> In your fantasy, the savanna believers say.
      >
      > >>> As said, the onus is on them not us ...
      >
      > >> They say: hominid remains have been found near
      > >> ostrich egg shells & butchered bovid bones, so
      > >> the onus in on the AATers.
      >
      > > Ostrich shells, if that is all they have then the
      > > onus is definitely on them ...
      >
      > Of course, but that's not what they think...
      >
      > >>>>> As said the onus is on anti-AATers to prove the waterside
      > >>>>> hypotheses wrong, explain why a large primate on the open
      > >>>>> plains is the exception in the animal kingdom, in evolving
      > >>>>> a relatively large brain in what for all intents and
      > >>>>> purposes is a desert devoid of the `brain' nutrients
      > >>>>> easily found on the shore.
      >
      > >>>> Yes, but they say: Maasai have large brains & live in
      > >>>> the savanna: no reason why oour ancestors could not
      > >>>> have done that.
      >
      > >>> Savanna a'piths ... 2.5 mya?
      >
      > >> (not sure what you're asking, m3d: IMO no hominid fossil
      > >> is exclusinvely "savanna": all are waterside in or outside
      > >> savannas ; apiths after c.2.5 Ma generally lived in
      > >> more open wetlands)
      >
      > > It is extremely doubtful IMO that a short legged
      > > furry wobbly kneed a'pith, would have fared long
      > > enough on the open plain 2.5 mya ... for its
      > > descendants to evolve relatively large brains.
      >
      > Of course.
      >
      > (BTW, IMO apiths were not our ancestors)
      >
      >
      > ...
      >
      >
      > >> Maasai = savanna = large brain, they say.
      > >> AATers reason that large brains support AAT, but
      > >> the presence of large brains in human savanna
      > >> populations suggests AAT thinking is wrong,
      > >> anti-AATers say.
      >
      > > If that is their only argument, I would suggest
      > > they go and lie down in a darkened room until
      > > normal brain function ... resumes.
      >
      > In fact, it is their only "argument".
      >
      > > The presence of a relatively large brain in human
      > > savanna dwellers, simply proves that the waterside
      > > hypotheses is correct. If the Maasai had originated
      > > on the open plain, they would not have a
      > > relatively large brain.
      >
      > Problem is: anti-AATers are convinced our ancestors originated in
      the dry
      > open plain: that is they believe were the butchered bones & the
      ostrich egg
      > shells laid. :-D
      >
      >
      > > [12]
      > >>>>>>>> - plantigrady: do inland populations walk/run more
      > >>>>>>>> on their toes than waterside populations?
      >
      > >>>>>>> Why on Earth, would anyone choose to constantly
      > >>>>>>> walk on their toes? Humans are plantigrade.
      >
      > >>>>>> Cursorial mammals all walk & run on their hooves/toes.
      >
      > >>>>> There are big differences in how species, make use
      > >>>>> of the foot. Some are digitigrade, some unguligrade
      > >>>>> and others like humans are plantigrade. If humans
      > >>>>> were born to run ... we would be digitigrade.
      >
      > >>>> Yes, but we have to ask: why are some spp (bovids, equids)
      > >>>> unguligrade? Why not other spp, eg, ursids, apes?
      >
      > >>> Which was the prey, an which predator?
      >
      > >> Bears are generally predators, apes generally prey spp.
      > >> It's clear that evolution towards cursorialism generally
      > >> promotes running on distal parts of the legs: all
      > >> cursorials are unguli- (prey) or digitigrade (predators).
      > >> Bears are waterside omnivores (ABT = aq.bear theory).
      >
      > > Penguins are also plantigrade ...
      > > Their upright posture means they waddle or
      > > walk on the sole of the foot, not their toes
      > > like other birds.
      >
      > Not sure whether that is related. Bears (plantigrade) also are
      rel.vertical
      > when they walk bipedally. But geese, eg, are fully plantigrade & have
      > horizontal spines AFAIK.
      >
      > > Possibly plantigrade is the
      > > least specialised of the three means of getting
      > > around ... the forms used by prey and predators
      > > seem considerably more specialised.
      >
      > Yes, but our kind of plantigrady is also very specific (eg, derived from
      > what we see in monkeys): lengthened hind food, shortened front foot
      (toes),
      > rel.long 1st & 5th pedal digital rays etc.
      >
      > > Other plantigrade species: rabbits, weasels,
      > > pandas, opossums, raccoons and hedgehogs.
      >
      >
      > > [13]
      > >>>>>>>> - are Oceanic islanders more streamlined than,
      > >>>>>>>> eg, Andean highlanders?
      >
      > >>>>>>> No difference, an aligned posture is beneficial
      > >>>>>>> to both ...
      >
      > >>>>>> On land today?? Why? An aligned posture is only
      > >>>>>> advantageous in water AFAIK (hydrodynamism).
      >
      > >>>>> In neither water or on land are humans a 100%
      > >>>>> aligned, but being otherwise relatively aligned
      > >>>>> is an advantage in and out of water ...
      > >>>>> Think about it, for a moment ... what is the
      > >>>>> easiest way as a biped to carry your weight?
      > >>>>> Upright?
      >
      > >>>> No, m3d: ostiches & kangaroos carry their weights
      > >>>> with +-horizontal spines.
      >
      > >>> Humans have a vertical spine ... walk upright
      > >>> and let the bones, take the weight.
      >
      > >> This is no law, m3d.
      > >> Of all bipeds only humans & penguins have vertical
      > >> spines AFAIK. All other bipeds run with +-horizontal
      > >> spines (human sprinters also run with
      > >> forward inclined spines).
      >
      > > Not a law ...
      > > but its easier on the muscles of the back
      > > (less back pain)
      >
      > Many patients suffering from backache walk with less vertical backs.
      >
      > > to maintain a relatively aligned upright posture
      >
      > A usual mistake IMO. It's not necessary to stand vertical to reduce
      > standing/walking/running costs: ostriches etc.etc.have horizontal
      spines.
      >
      > > (the posture of
      > > sprinters ... could be another indication
      > > that humans are not natural born runners?)
      > > Possibly it is a lot easier for penguins
      > > to maintain an aligned upright posture
      > > out of the water (they don't bend in the
      > > middle) as they lack the long legs found
      > > in humans.
      >
      > Penguins need an aligned build (streamlined).
      > Humans don't need any more an aligned build.
      >
      > --marc
      >
    • m3dodds
      ... Not convinced that streamlining was of any value to our shore ancestors, the problems humans face in diving to depths of more than 10 metres, have to with
      Message 32 of 32 , Apr 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In AAT@yahoogroups.com, Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...> wrote:
        >
        > Op 05-04-2008 08:29, m3dodds <dons3148@...> schreef:
        >
        > >>>>>>>>> (streamlined - has to do with shape ... aligned
        > >>>>>>>>> - has to do with keeping the various bits and
        > >>>>>>>>> pieces in a line) ---m3d
        >
        > >>>>>>>> Yes, you're right. Our semi-aquatic ancestors were
        > >>>>>>>> much fatter (incl.belly), had shorter legs (esp.tibiae),
        > >>>>>>>> their heads were directed rostrally & flattened etc.:
        > >>>>>>>> their alignedness was 1 aspect of their streamline.
        >
        > >>>>>>> Probably as they were part-time divers and slow
        > >>>>>>> moving ... being relatively aligned when diving
        > >>>>>>> and swimming ... was more than sufficient.
        >
        > >>>>>> Well, even for slow swimmers, streamlining saves a lot
        > >>>>>> of energy, but our ancestors at the time were littoral
        > >>>>>> not fully aquatic.
        >
        > >>>>> But, if they were simply foraging (diving/swimming)
        > >>>>> in the water, streamlining (losing the bits that
        > >>>>> cause drag) would not be much of an advantage ...
        >
        > >>>> Even in slow swimmers streamlining is extremely imortant
        > >>>> for saving energy (& in fast swimmers even more so):
        > >>>> water is 800 x denser than air, and 60 x as viscous.
        >
        > >>> Important for aquatic species, species running
        > >>> down prey in the water ... but for a part-time
        > >>> shallow water forager, being aligned probably
        > >>> sufficed ...
        >
        > >> No, no, m3d: the costs of drag are *enormous*.
        > >> Imagine when every movement you make becomes
        > >> say 100 times as difficult. --Marc
        >
        > > Yes ... drag is an important factor for mammals that
        > > live in the oceans ... but the human animal is not
        > > streamlined like an aquatic mammal ... we have neither
        > > fused the head and torso together, lost our limbs or
        > > moved the other various bits and pieces within the
        > > body like a dolphin (an other aquatic mammals) ...
        >
        > 1) Our littoral ancestors were far more streamlined
        > (in the water at least) than we are now: fatter belly,
        > flatter skull, protruding midface etc., see DD's &
        > my reconstructions.


        > 2) Streamlinings of bottom-divers (sea-otter) & fast
        > swimmers (dolphin) differ. We (in the water at least)
        > belonged to the first group.


        Not convinced that streamlining was of any value
        to our shore ancestors, the problems humans face
        in diving to depths of more than 10 metres, have
        to with pressure ... (an the very limited amount
        of time they can spend underwater)

        Our relatively aligned posture suffices today, for
        those who choose to swim and dive, an probably did
        the same for our shore ancestors once they adopted
        (adapted?) a more aligned posture ...



        > 3) Our ancestors, even at their "most-aquatic moment",
        > were littoral: they spent part of their time outside
        > the water: they needed a compromise between their
        > different locomotions in & outside the water.
        > --Marc


        Would agree, with that ...
        (apart for calling them littoral)


        ---m3d


















        > > Keeping them aligned, relatively aligned, when
        > > foraging and diving in shallow waters clearly sufficed
        > > for our shore ancestors (an suffices for those who go
        > > swimming and diving today). ---m3d
        >
        > ______
        >
        >
        > >>>>>>> Dolphins swim so fast it hurts
        > >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/33l7ys
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>>>> For running, alignedness is not necessary & arguablby
        > >>>>>>>> disadvantageous for muscle attachments etc., see
        > >>>>>>>> ostriches, birds, kangaroos, bipedal dinos etc.
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>>> There could be a reason, for leaning forwards
        > >>>>>>> when running, the runner could actually be
        > >>>>>>> taking advantage of gravity ...
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>> Possible. It's more a question of muscle attachments
        > >>>>>> & muscle levers, equilibria etc. (eg, Hildebrand,
        > >>>>>> McGowan...) I'd think.
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Human "alignedness" (I guess not the best term) can
        > >>>>>>>> only be explained IMO as a rudiment of part of a
        > >>>>>>>> streamline. --Marc
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>>> Human alignment ... keeping the bits and pieces, more
        > >>>>>>> or less in a line may not be perfect, but it seems to
        > >>>>>>> work in and out of water ...
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>> Not outside the water: the only "aligned" creatures
        > >>>>>> (apart from worms & snakes etc.underground) are humans
        > >>>>>> & penguins AFAIK.
        > >>>>
        > >>>>> Possibly, we are not discussing the same
        > >>>>> thing, the following quote may explain ...
        > >>>>> things better.
        > >>>>> [quote]
        > >>>>> Neutral spine is the proper alignment of the body
        > >>>>> between postural extremes. In its natural alignment,
        > >>>>> the spine is not straight. It has curves in the
        > >>>>> thoracic (upper) and lumbar (lower) regions. There
        > >>>>> is a slight forward curve in the lumbar region
        > >>>>> (lordosis), a slight backward curve in the thorasic
        > >>>>> region (kyphosis) and a slight extension in the tiny
        > >>>>> cervical vertebra at the top of the spine. In addition
        > >>>>> the ears, shoulders, hips, knees and ankles are aligned
        > >>>>> as if a plumb line was running from the ears down
        > >>>>> through the torso into the legs and the feet. In
        > >>>>> neutral posture, the body is able to function in its
        > >>>>> strongest, most balanced position. Stress to the
        > >>>>> joints, muscles, vertebrae and tissue is minimized.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> The lumbar lordosis was necessary to get alingned
        > >>>> head-body-legs.
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> Sufficiently aligned ... in an out of water.
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>>>>> Which was first, body alignment while swimming
        > >>>>>>> and diving? ---m3d
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>> No doubt, our aligment was a swimming/diving adaptation.
        > >>>>>> We're evolving away from it. --Marc
        > >>>>
        > >>>>> Evolving away, in what sense ... by becoming
        > >>>>> less aligned? ---m3d
        > >>>>
        > >>>> Yes, obviously IMO.
        > >>>>
        > >>>> --Marc
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> Questionable ... earlier Homo, Homo erectus for
        > >>> example had a more stooped posture, than H.s.s
        > >>> (modern man) has today.
        > >>>
        > >>> (though it does not stop some ... spending a fortune
        > >>> on Maasai(MBT) walking shoes - a current craze - to
        > >>> correct their posture an ease their back pain)
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> ---m3d
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> _______
        > >>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maasai = savanna = large brain, they say.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> AATers reason that large brains support AAT, but
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> the presence of large brains in human savanna
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> populations suggests AAT thinking is wrong,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-AATers say.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> If that is their only argument, I would suggest
        > >>>>>>>>>>> they go and lie down in a darkened room until
        > >>>>>>>>>>> normal brain function ... resumes.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> In fact, it is their only "argument".
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> The presence of a relatively large brain in human
        > >>>>>>>>>>> savanna dwellers, simply proves that the waterside
        > >>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses is correct. If the Maasai had originated
        > >>>>>>>>>>> on the open plain, they would not have a
        > >>>>>>>>>>> relatively large brain.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Problem is: anti-AATers are convinced our ancestors
        > >>>>>>>>>> originated in the dry open plain: that is they believe
        > >>>>>>>>>> where the butchered bones & the ostrich egg
        > >>>>>>>>>> shells laid. :-D
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> It's their problem ...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Yes, but it's a bit frustrating that they think it's
        > >>>>>>>> our problem... and since they are the "experts"...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Most reputable PAs are edging (albeit - slowly) away
        > >>>>>>> from the discredited 'savanna hypotheses' ... being
        > >>>>>>> human ... a lot of face-saving is involved.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Yes.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> I would simply reiterate: that the presence
        > >>>>>>>>> of a relatively large brain in human savanna
        > >>>>>>>>> dwellers proves the waterside hypotheses
        > >>>>>>>>> is correct ...
        > >>>>>>>>> The Maasai, it should be pointed out ...
        > >>>>>>>>> drink milk on a daily basis ... like the Mongols
        > >>>>>>>>> of central Asia have done for centuries (drinking
        > >>>>>>>>> milk has some health benefits).
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> My fault, sorry: Maasai was the first name of a
        > >>>>>>>> savanna population that I could think of, perhaps
        > >>>>>>>> I had better used KhoiSan or so.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> O.K.
        > >>>>>>> Though to be honest ... I don't think there is a
        > >>>>>>> single example that can be used to typify ... our
        > >>>>>>> alleged 'savanna' precursors. The Khoikhoi of the
        > >>>>>>> cape were (are) hunter/gathers/herders ...
        > >>>>>>> Khoikhoi http://khoisan.org/
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Ok.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> Somehow ... I cannot picture furry little short-
        > >>>>>>>>> legged a'piths 2.5 mya, chasing down bovines on
        > >>>>>>>>> the savanna to get their daily bowl of milk ...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> The whole idea is utterly ridiculous.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Agree.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> IMO modern man can make his home on the savanna
        > >>>>>>>>> but he neither lives like, or eats like a
        > >>>>>>>>> savanna animal ...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Yes, of course.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Yes, it is obvious to everyone except
        > >>>>>>> savanna fantasists.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Humans have a vertical spine ... walk upright
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> and let the bones, take the weight.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is no law, m3d.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Of all bipeds only humans & penguins have vertical
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> spines AFAIK. All other bipeds run with +-horizontal
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> spines (human sprinters also run with
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> forward inclined spines).
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Not a law ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>> but its easier on the muscles of the back
        > >>>>>>>>>>> (less back pain)
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Many patients suffering from backache walk with
        > >>>>>>>>>> less vertical backs.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> That is why I define it as having a relatively
        > >>>>>>>>> aligned posture.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a relatively aligned upright
        > >>>>>>>>>>> posture
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> A usual mistake IMO. It's not necessary to
        > >>>>>>>>>> stand vertical to reduce standing/walking/
        > >>>>>>>>>> running costs: ostriches etc.etc.have
        > >>>>>>>>>> horizontal spines.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> It is not a question of reducing costs, more
        > >>>>>>>>> of benefit to the individual ... muscles
        > >>>>>>>>> tire, bones don't.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> (the posture of
        > >>>>>>>>>>> sprinters ... could be another indication
        > >>>>>>>>>>> that humans are not natural born runners?)
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Possibly it is a lot easier for penguins
        > >>>>>>>>>>> to maintain an aligned upright posture
        > >>>>>>>>>>> out of the water (they don't bend in the
        > >>>>>>>>>>> middle) as they lack the long legs found
        > >>>>>>>>>>> in humans.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Penguins need an aligned build (streamlined).
        > >>>>>>>>>> Humans don't need any more an aligned build.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> Penguins are aligned in an out of water, humans
        > >>>>>>>>> are relatively aligned when swimming and when
        > >>>>>>>>> walking and standing.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> When we look at how people walk through the
        > >>>>>>>> streets, few are really vertical (esp.the head).
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> And they wonder why, they get back-pain ...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Not because they're no walking vertical.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>> (streamlined - has to do with shape ... aligned
        > >>>>>>>>> - has to do with keeping the various bits and
        > >>>>>>>>> pieces in a line) ---m3d
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Yes, you're right. Our semi-aquatic ancestors were
        > >>>>>>>> much fatter (incl.belly), had shorter legs (esp.tibiae),
        > >>>>>>>> their heads were directed rostrally & flattened etc.:
        > >>>>>>>> their alignedness was 1 aspect of their streamline.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Probably as they were part-time divers and slow
        > >>>>>>> moving ... being relatively aligned when diving
        > >>>>>>> and swimming ... was more than sufficient.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Well, even for slow swimmers, streamlining saves a lot of energy,
        > >>>>> but our
        > >>>>>> ancestors at the time were littoral, not fully aquatic.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Dolphins swim so fast it hurts
        > >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/33l7ys
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> For running, alignedness is not necessary & arguablby
        > >>>>>>>> disadvantageous for muscle attachments etc., see
        > >>>>>>>> ostriches, birds, kangaroos, bipedal dinos etc.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> There could be a reason, for leaning forwards
        > >>>>>>> when running, the runner could actually be
        > >>>>>>> taking advantage of gravity ...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Possible. It's more a question of muscle attachments & muscle
        > >>> levers,
        > >>>>>> equilibria etc. (eg, Hildebrand, McGowan...) I'd think.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>> Human "alignedness" (I guess not the best term) can
        > >>>>>>>> only be explained IMO as a rudiment of part of a
        > >>>>>>>> streamline. --Marc
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Human alignment ... keeping the bits and pieces, more
        > >>>>>>> or less in a line may not be perfect, but it seems to
        > >>>>>>> work in and out of water ...
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> Not outside the water: the only "aligned" creatures (apart from
        > >>> worms &
        > >>>>>> snakes etc.underground) are humans & penguins AFAIK.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>>> Which was first, body alignment while swimming
        > >>>>>>> and diving? ---m3d
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> No doubt, our aligment was a swimming/diving adaptation. We're
        > >>>>>> evolving away from it.
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> --Marc
        > >>>>>>
        > >>>>>> ----------------------------
        > >>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> AATers say that large brain, breathhold skills,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> plantigrade feet, aligned body form, furlessness,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> SC fat etc.etc. prove that AAT is correct, but
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-AATers say that since all these features are
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> seen in humans today, and since modern humans are
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> not (semi)aquatic, these features do not
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> prove AAT.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is serious objection IMO, which is diffucult
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> to answer.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Would tend to disagree (it is not difficult) ... only
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> the first counts, the remainder are secondary (best
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> left to AATers ... to tie themselves in knots
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> questioning).
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Whereas the first is clear evidence for our waterside
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> past. The onus is now on AATers to come up with an
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> answer as to how a primate evolved a large brain and
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> mastered iodine deficiency on the savanna (or wherever
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> away from the shore, they think it happened ...)
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) savanna believers will say: there are humans with
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> large brain & iodine needs who run after kudus, so large
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> brains & high iodine needs don't contradict the savanna
        > >>>>> theory,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) if AAT is wrong, that doesn't automatically prove the
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> savanna theory: other scenarios are also theoreticallly
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> also possible.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> There are humans today with large brains and iodine
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> needs, who do run after kudus on the savanna, but
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> they too are the descendants of a waterside
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> precursor.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> In your fantasy, the savanna believers say.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> As said, the onus is on them not us ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> They say: hominid remains have been found near
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> ostrich egg shells & butchered bovid bones, so
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> the onus in on the AATers.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Ostrich shells, if that is all they have then the
        > >>>>>>>>>>> onus is definitely on them ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Of course, but that's not what they think...
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> As said the onus is on anti-AATers to prove the waterside
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses wrong, explain why a large primate on the open
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> plains is the exception in the animal kingdom, in evolving
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> a relatively large brain in what for all intents and
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> purposes is a desert devoid of the `brain' nutrients
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> easily found on the shore.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but they say: Maasai have large brains & live in
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> the savanna: no reason why oour ancestors could not
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> have done that.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Savanna a'piths ... 2.5 mya?
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> (not sure what you're asking, m3d: IMO no hominid fossil
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> is exclusinvely "savanna": all are waterside in or outside
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> savannas ; apiths after c.2.5 Ma generally lived in
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> more open wetlands)
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> It is extremely doubtful IMO that a short legged
        > >>>>>>>>>>> furry wobbly kneed a'pith, would have fared long
        > >>>>>>>>>>> enough on the open plain 2.5 mya ... for its
        > >>>>>>>>>>> descendants to evolve relatively large brains.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Of course.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> (BTW, IMO apiths were not our ancestors)
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maasai = savanna = large brain, they say.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> AATers reason that large brains support AAT, but
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> the presence of large brains in human savanna
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> populations suggests AAT thinking is wrong,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> anti-AATers say.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> If that is their only argument, I would suggest
        > >>>>>>>>>>> they go and lie down in a darkened room until
        > >>>>>>>>>>> normal brain function ... resumes.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> In fact, it is their only "argument".
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> The presence of a relatively large brain in human
        > >>>>>>>>>>> savanna dwellers, simply proves that the waterside
        > >>>>>>>>>>> hypotheses is correct. If the Maasai had originated
        > >>>>>>>>>>> on the open plain, they would not have a
        > >>>>>>>>>>> relatively large brain.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Problem is: anti-AATers are convinced our ancestors
        > > originated in
        > >>>>>>>>> the dry
        > >>>>>>>>>> open plain: that is they believe were the butchered bones
        & the
        > >>>>>>>>> ostrich egg
        > >>>>>>>>>> shells laid. :-D
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> [12]
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> - plantigrady: do inland populations walk/run more
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> on their toes than waterside populations?
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why on Earth, would anyone choose to constantly
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> walk on their toes? Humans are plantigrade.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cursorial mammals all walk & run on their hooves/toes.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> There are big differences in how species, make use
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> of the foot. Some are digitigrade, some unguligrade
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> and others like humans are plantigrade. If humans
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> were born to run ... we would be digitigrade.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but we have to ask: why are some spp (bovids, equids)
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> unguligrade? Why not other spp, eg, ursids, apes?
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Which was the prey, an which predator?
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bears are generally predators, apes generally prey spp.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> It's clear that evolution towards cursorialism generally
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> promotes running on distal parts of the legs: all
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> cursorials are unguli- (prey) or digitigrade (predators).
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Bears are waterside omnivores (ABT = aq.bear theory).
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Penguins are also plantigrade ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Their upright posture means they waddle or
        > >>>>>>>>>>> walk on the sole of the foot, not their toes
        > >>>>>>>>>>> like other birds.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Not sure whether that is related. Bears (plantigrade)
        also are
        > >>>>>>>>> rel.vertical
        > >>>>>>>>>> when they walk bipedally. But geese, eg, are fully
        > > plantigrade &
        > >>>>>>> have
        > >>>>>>>>>> horizontal spines AFAIK.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Possibly plantigrade is the
        > >>>>>>>>>>> least specialised of the three means of getting
        > >>>>>>>>>>> around ... the forms used by prey and predators
        > >>>>>>>>>>> seem considerably more specialised.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, but our kind of plantigrady is also very specific (eg,
        > >>>>>>> derived from
        > >>>>>>>>>> what we see in monkeys): lengthened hind food, shortened
        > >>> front foot
        > >>>>>>>>> (toes),
        > >>>>>>>>>> rel.long 1st & 5th pedal digital rays etc.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Other plantigrade species: rabbits, weasels,
        > >>>>>>>>>>> pandas, opossums, raccoons and hedgehogs.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> [13]
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> - are Oceanic islanders more streamlined than,
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> eg, Andean highlanders?
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> No difference, an aligned posture is beneficial
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> to both ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> On land today?? Why? An aligned posture is only
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> advantageous in water AFAIK (hydrodynamism).
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> In neither water or on land are humans a 100%
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> aligned, but being otherwise relatively aligned
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> is an advantage in and out of water ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Think about it, for a moment ... what is the
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> easiest way as a biped to carry your weight?
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Upright?
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, m3d: ostiches & kangaroos carry their weights
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> with +-horizontal spines.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Humans have a vertical spine ... walk upright
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> and let the bones, take the weight.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is no law, m3d.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> Of all bipeds only humans & penguins have vertical
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> spines AFAIK. All other bipeds run with +-horizontal
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> spines (human sprinters also run with
        > >>>>>>>>>>>> forward inclined spines).
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Not a law ...
        > >>>>>>>>>>> but its easier on the muscles of the back
        > >>>>>>>>>>> (less back pain)
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Many patients suffering from backache walk with less vertical
        > >>>>> backs.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a relatively aligned upright posture
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> A usual mistake IMO. It's not necessary to stand vertical to
        > >>> reduce
        > >>>>>>>>>> standing/walking/running costs: ostriches etc.etc.have
        > > horizontal
        > >>>>>>>>> spines.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>>> (the posture of
        > >>>>>>>>>>> sprinters ... could be another indication
        > >>>>>>>>>>> that humans are not natural born runners?)
        > >>>>>>>>>>> Possibly it is a lot easier for penguins
        > >>>>>>>>>>> to maintain an aligned upright posture
        > >>>>>>>>>>> out of the water (they don't bend in the
        > >>>>>>>>>>> middle) as they lack the long legs found
        > >>>>>>>>>>> in humans.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> Penguins need an aligned build (streamlined).
        > >>>>>>>>>> Humans don't need any more an aligned build.
        > >>>>>>>>>>
        > >>>>>>>>>> --marc
        > >>>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>> ------------------------------------
        > >>>
        > >>> Community email addresses:
        > >>> Post message: AAT@onelist.com
        > >>> Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
        > >>> Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
        > >>> List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
        > >>>
        > >>> Shortcut URL to this page:
        > >>> http://www.onelist.com/community/AATYahoo! Groups Links
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Community email addresses:
        > > Post message: AAT@onelist.com
        > > Subscribe: AAT-subscribe@onelist.com
        > > Unsubscribe: AAT-unsubscribe@onelist.com
        > > List owner: AAT-owner@onelist.com
        > >
        > > Shortcut URL to this page:
        > > http://www.onelist.com/community/AATYahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.