StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus: Its Significance for an
Australopith Bauplan
Abstract
The StW 573 skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein
Member 2 is some 93% complete and thus by far the most complete member
of that genus yet found. Firmly dated at 3.67 Ma, it is one of the
earliest specimens of its genus. A crucial aspect of interpretation of locomotor behaviour from fossil remains is an understanding of the palaeoenvironment in which the individual lived and the manner in
which it would have used it. While the value of this ecomorphological approach is largely accepted, it has not been widely used as a stable framework on which to build evolutionary biomechanical
interpretations. Here, we collate the available evidence on StW 573’s anatomy in order, as far as currently possible, to reconstruct what
might have been this individual’s realized and potential niche. We
explore the concept of a common Australopithecus "bauplan" by
comparing the morphology and ecological context of StW 573 to that of paenocontemporaneous australopiths including Australopithecus
anamensis and KSD-VP-1/1 Australopithecus afarensis. Each was probably substantially arboreal and woodland-dwelling, relying substantially on arboreal resources. We use a hypothesis-driven approach, tested by:
virtual experiments, in the case of extinct species; biomechanical
analyses of the locomotor behaviour of living great ape species; and analogical experiments with human subjects. From these, we conclude
that the habitual locomotor mode of all australopiths was upright
bipedalism, whether on the ground or on branches. Some later
australopiths such as Australopithecus sediba undoubtedly became more terrestrial, allowing sacrifice of arboreal stability in favour of
manual dexterity. Indeed, modern humans retain arboreal climbing
skills but have further sacrificed arboreal effectiveness for enhanced ability to sustain striding terrestrial bipedalism over much greater distances. We compare StW 573’s locomotor adaptations to those of
living great apes and protohominins, and agree with those earlier
observers who suggest that the common panin-hominin last common
ancestor was postcranially more like Gorilla than Pan.
Open access:
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus: Its Significance for an
Australopith Bauplan
The StW 573 skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2 is some 93% complete and thus by far the most complete member
of that genus yet found. Firmly dated at 3.67 Ma, it is one of the earliest specimens of its genus. A crucial aspect of interpretation of locomotor behaviour from fossil remains is an understanding of the palaeoenvironment in which the individual lived and the manner in
which it would have used it. While the value of this ecomorphological approach is largely accepted, it has not been widely used as a stable framework on which to build evolutionary biomechanical
interpretations. Here, we collate the available evidence on StW 573’s anatomy in order, as far as currently possible, to reconstruct what
might have been this individual’s realized and potential niche. We explore the concept of a common Australopithecus "bauplan" by
comparing the morphology and ecological context of StW 573 to that of paenocontemporaneous australopiths including Australopithecus
anamensis and KSD-VP-1/1 Australopithecus afarensis. Each was probably substantially arboreal and woodland-dwelling, relying substantially on arboreal resources. We use a hypothesis-driven approach, tested by: virtual experiments, in the case of extinct species; biomechanical analyses of the locomotor behaviour of living great ape species; and analogical experiments with human subjects. From these, we conclude
that the habitual locomotor mode of all australopiths was upright bipedalism, whether on the ground or on branches. Some later
australopiths such as Australopithecus sediba undoubtedly became more terrestrial, allowing sacrifice of arboreal stability in favour of
manual dexterity. Indeed, modern humans retain arboreal climbing
skills but have further sacrificed arboreal effectiveness for enhanced ability to sustain striding terrestrial bipedalism over much greater distances. We compare StW 573’s locomotor adaptations to those of
living great apes and protohominins, and agree with those earlier observers who suggest that the common panin-hominin last common
ancestor was postcranially more like Gorilla than Pan. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
Op zondag 29 mei 2022 om 07:08:23 UTC+2 schreef Primum Sapienti:
StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus: Its Significance for an Australopith Bauplan
The StW 573 skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2 is some 93% complete and thus by far the most complete member of that genus yet found. Firmly dated at 3.67 Ma, it is one of the earliest specimens of its genus. A crucial aspect of interpretation of locomotor behaviour from fossil remains is an understanding of the palaeoenvironment in which the individual lived and the manner in
which it would have used it. While the value of this ecomorphological approach is largely accepted, it has not been widely used as a stable framework on which to build evolutionary biomechanical
interpretations. Here, we collate the available evidence on StW 573’s anatomy in order, as far as currently possible, to reconstruct what might have been this individual’s realized and potential niche. We explore the concept of a common Australopithecus "bauplan" by
comparing the morphology and ecological context of StW 573 to that of paenocontemporaneous australopiths including Australopithecus
anamensis and KSD-VP-1/1 Australopithecus afarensis. Each was probably substantially arboreal and woodland-dwelling, relying substantially on arboreal resources. We use a hypothesis-driven approach, tested by: virtual experiments, in the case of extinct species; biomechanical analyses of the locomotor behaviour of living great ape species; and analogical experiments with human subjects. From these, we conclude
that the habitual locomotor mode of all australopiths was upright bipedalism, whether on the ground or on branches. Some later australopiths such as Australopithecus sediba undoubtedly became more terrestrial, allowing sacrifice of arboreal stability in favour of manual dexterity. Indeed, modern humans retain arboreal climbing
skills but have further sacrificed arboreal effectiveness for enhanced ability to sustain striding terrestrial bipedalism over much greater distances. We compare StW 573’s locomotor adaptations to those of living great apes and protohominins, and agree with those earlier observers who suggest that the common panin-hominin last common
ancestor was postcranially more like Gorilla than Pan. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
Sigh.
Some will never get it.
Keep running after your kudu, my boy.
- Of course, no KWing, as I said already 30 years ago.
- And of course, aquarboreal origin of BPism:
vertical for wading +climbing ams overhead is already 20 Ma.
Why not inform a little bit before talking??
Google "aquarborealism".
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:08:23 AM UTC+1, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
On Sunday 29 May 2022 at 17:14:11 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking.
....
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
Once again, compared to what?
..
Humans have (and australopiths had)
altricial infants. Other primates don't.
They are born with long strong arms
that can, from the moment of birth,
hold onto their mothers.
That's because they live (and sleep) in
trees. They're arboreal. Humans aren't
arboreal, and neither were australopiths
-- not to any significant extent. We don't
take small babies up into trees, and
neither did australopiths.
All this presents us (and the professional
PAs) with a problem. How did they cope
with the large numbers (of many species
now nearly all extinct) of predators, that
roamed the landscape, in every habitat,
including forests?
Gibbon mothers nurse their infants the first year, they are attached.Irrelevant.
The second year, gibbon fathers teach the toddler how to walk
upright on branches. In humans, on the ground always associated
with shelter and group. Father then induces mother & toddler to
wean (enabling him to mate with mother) with various "bait"
(attention, non-milk aromatic food) until toddler is walking between
mother and father. Other great apes, due to individual arboreal bowl
nests have their own methods.
carefully controlled conditions, high up
in the canopy, well away from almost
all dangerous predators. If and when
an arboreal predator approaches, the
mother picks up her infant and the
whole gibbon family brachiate away at
a speed that leave it far behind.
..Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle..
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
Once again, compared to what?
..
Gibbon mothers nurse their infants the first year, they are attached.
The second year, gibbon fathers teach the toddler how to walk
upright on branches. In humans, on the ground always associated
with shelter and group. Father then induces mother & toddler to
wean (enabling him to mate with mother) with various "bait"
(attention, non-milk aromatic food) until toddler is walking between
mother and father. Other great apes, due to individual arboreal bowl
nests have their own methods.
Pandora wrote:
StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus: Its Significance for an
Australopith Bauplan
Abstract
The StW 573 skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein
Member 2 is some 93% complete and thus by far the most complete member
of that genus yet found. Firmly dated at 3.67 Ma, it is one of the
earliest specimens of its genus. A crucial aspect of interpretation of
locomotor behaviour from fossil remains is an understanding of the
palaeoenvironment in which the individual lived and the manner in
which it would have used it. While the value of this ecomorphological
approach is largely accepted, it has not been widely used as a stable
framework on which to build evolutionary biomechanical
interpretations. Here, we collate the available evidence on StW 573’s
anatomy in order, as far as currently possible, to reconstruct what
might have been this individual’s realized and potential niche. We
explore the concept of a common Australopithecus "bauplan" by
comparing the morphology and ecological context of StW 573 to that of
paenocontemporaneous australopiths including Australopithecus
anamensis and KSD-VP-1/1 Australopithecus afarensis. Each was probably
substantially arboreal and woodland-dwelling, relying substantially on
arboreal resources. We use a hypothesis-driven approach, tested by:
virtual experiments, in the case of extinct species; biomechanical
analyses of the locomotor behaviour of living great ape species; and
analogical experiments with human subjects. From these, we conclude
that the habitual locomotor mode of all australopiths was upright
bipedalism, whether on the ground or on branches. Some later
australopiths such as Australopithecus sediba undoubtedly became more
terrestrial, allowing sacrifice of arboreal stability in favour of
manual dexterity. Indeed, modern humans retain arboreal climbing
skills but have further sacrificed arboreal effectiveness for enhanced
ability to sustain striding terrestrial bipedalism over much greater
distances. We compare StW 573’s locomotor adaptations to those of
living great apes and protohominins, and agree with those earlier
observers who suggest that the common panin-hominin last common
ancestor was postcranially more like Gorilla than Pan.
Open access:
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal
origin of bipedalism...
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:08:23 AM UTC+1, Primum Sapienti wrote:
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
Open access:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus: Its Significance for an Australopith Bauplan
The StW 573 skeleton of Australopithecus prometheus from Sterkfontein Member 2 is some 93% complete and thus by far the most complete member of that genus yet found. Firmly dated at 3.67 Ma, it is one of the earliest specimens of its genus. A crucial aspect of interpretation of locomotor behaviour from fossil remains is an understanding of the palaeoenvironment in which the individual lived and the manner in which it would have used it. While the value of this ecomorphological approach is largely accepted, it has not been widely used as a stable framework on which to build evolutionary biomechanical interpretations. Here, we collate the available evidence on StW 573’s
anatomy in order, as far as currently possible, to reconstruct what might have been this individual’s realized and potential niche. We explore the concept of a common Australopithecus "bauplan" by comparing the morphology and ecological context of StW 573 to that of paenocontemporaneous australopiths including Australopithecus anamensis and KSD-VP-1/1 Australopithecus afarensis. Each was probably substantially arboreal and woodland-dwelling, relying substantially on arboreal resources. We use a hypothesis-driven approach, tested by: virtual experiments, in the case of extinct species; biomechanical analyses of the locomotor behaviour of living great ape species; and analogical experiments with human subjects. From these, we conclude that the habitual locomotor mode of all australopiths was upright bipedalism, whether on the ground or on branches. Some later australopiths such as Australopithecus sediba undoubtedly became more terrestrial, allowing sacrifice of arboreal stability in favour of manual dexterity. Indeed, modern humans retain arboreal climbing skills but have further sacrificed arboreal effectiveness for enhanced ability to sustain striding terrestrial bipedalism over much greater distances. We compare StW 573’s locomotor adaptations to those of living great apes and protohominins, and agree with those earlier observers who suggest that the common panin-hominin last common ancestor was postcranially more like Gorilla than Pan. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Sigh. Some will never get it.
Keep running after your kudu, my boy.
- Of course, no KWing, as I said already 30 years ago.
- And of course, aquarboreal origin of BPism:
vertical for wading +climbing ams overhead is already 20 Ma.
Nope, hylobatids = arboreal upright bipedal walking, no wading, lateral swinging
. .Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking.
I was responding to this, wrt altricial:
. .
Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
. .
But you seem to be focused on something else entirely, ape infant clinging, as
the main sign of precocial behavi
. .All this presents us (and the professional
PAs) with a problem. How did they cope
with the large numbers (of many species
now nearly all extinct) of predators, that
roamed the landscape, in every habitat,
including forests?
Ignore the solution, inverted ape bowl nests formed as portable domeshields,. .
at your own misguided peril. Their curved finger bones indicate arboreal climbing and probably arboreal nesting,. .
. .Open access:
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal
origin of bipedalism...
Also, notice the distinction between realized, potential, and. .
fundamental niche. The first is "cautiously reconstructed as rocky hills covered in brush and scrub, and potentially also a valley bottom with riverine forest, swamp and standing water"
Well, that should make almost everbody in s.a.p. happy except Paul,
because there was no predator-free island at Sterkfontein.
Sorry, Paul.
. .Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle. .
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
We're pretty certain that apith infants had hands,
Only there's not much hair left to hold on to.. .
Open access:. .
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
Altriciality may be a matter of degree, not an all or nothing feature.. .
On Monday 30 May 2022 at 11:51:09 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:ancestor of Myotragus likely arrived in the Balearic Islands during the Messinian stage of the late Miocene at a time at which the Strait of Gibraltar closed and the Mediterranean Sea evaporated, reducing sea level within the basin by 800–1200 metres,
Open access:
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle >walking. Arboreal. .
origin of bipedalism...
Also, notice the distinction between realized, potential, and. .
fundamental niche. The first is "cautiously reconstructed as rocky hills covered in brush and scrub, and potentially also a valley bottom with riverine forest, swamp and standing water"
It's a dolomitic limestone landscape. If there were a
lot of predators around, there might be more brush
and scrub. But since hominins were in the
neighbourhood, we can assume that predators were
scarce, and the grazing herbivores didn't leave much
other than grass.
. .
Well, that should make almost everbody in s.a.p. happy except Paul, because there was no predator-free island at Sterkfontein.As ever, you're conflating two quite distinct episodes
Sorry, Paul.
in hominin evolution. The initial speciation of the
bipedal taxon required isolation on a predator-free
island --probably for ~2 Myr.
. .
Once the hominins had acquired some measure of
the means to deal with large continental predators,
they could travel (usually without females or young)
relatively safely on the uplands, probably from about
4 ma.
Species of large omnivore began to go extinct from
about 3.5 ma as a direct result of hominin
persecution. Normal hominin populations then
became feasible in the uplands.
How did they do it? The might have set traps around
their camp sites, e.g. buried an animal corpse,
covering it with thorn branches, mixing in poisonous
plants, so that a carnivore trying to dig it up would
suffer and often die.
Keeping infants and other young safe at night would
remain a problem but, if they found good nocturnal
refuges, populations could survive, and sometimes
prosper. Caves in dolomitic landscapes provided
nocturnal refuge.
Upland Africa was not their natural habitat; they
would suffer from the cold at night or in winter; as
well as from lack of marine resources, such as DHA,
and salts of sodium and iodine. They would
probably not survive severe ice-ages. Coastal
hominin populations would do better and, over
time, out-compete inland ones.
On Monday 30 May 2022 at 11:51:09 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
. .Open access:
https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/519723
Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle
walking. Arboreal
origin of bipedalism...
Also, notice the distinction between realized, potential, and. .
fundamental niche. The first is "cautiously reconstructed as rocky hills
covered in brush and scrub, and potentially also a valley bottom with
riverine forest, swamp and standing water"
It's a dolomitic limestone landscape. If there were a
lot of predators around, there might be more brush
and scrub. But since hominins were in the
neighbourhood, we can assume that predators were
scarce, and the grazing herbivores didn't leave much
other than grass.
Well, that should make almost everbody in s.a.p. happy except Paul,
because there was no predator-free island at Sterkfontein.
Sorry, Paul.
As ever, you're conflating two quite distinct episodes
in hominin evolution. The initial speciation of the
bipedal taxon required isolation on a predator-free
island --probably for ~2 Myr.
Once the hominins had acquired some measure of
the means to deal with large continental predators,
they could travel (usually without females or young)
relatively safely on the uplands, probably from about
4 ma.
On Monday 30 May 2022 at 12:01:32 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
. .Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle. .
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
We're pretty certain that apith infants had hands,
The image I was portraying was something
like that of a human baby (if an australopith
here) standing and walking on a tree branch
demonstrating its balancing capabilities to
its proud parents.
. .
Only there's not much hair left to hold on to.. .
Chimp infants are born with long strong
arms, which they can wrap around their
mother's body. See this video of Fifi with
her just-born baby. At 0:48 you can see
that it is not holding onto Fifi's hair. Its
palm is flat.
. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPEsHvzO6k
Open access:. .
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
Altriciality may be a matter of degree, not an all or nothing feature.. .
Just nonsense. There are two states:
(a) the standard primate one where the
infant holds on 24/7, and
(b) the human one, where the infant is
put down during the day and the night,
only being held for feeding, or for
comfort -- insofar as the mother has
sufficient leisure for that luxury.
On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley
<yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday 30 May 2022 at 12:01:32 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
. .Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle. .
walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism...
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
We're pretty certain that apith infants had hands,
The image I was portraying was somethingNo, that's not what you can see in this short and blurry fragment.
like that of a human baby (if an australopith
here) standing and walking on a tree branch
demonstrating its balancing capabilities to
its proud parents.
. .
Only there's not much hair left to hold on to.. .
Chimp infants are born with long strong
arms, which they can wrap around their
mother's body. See this video of Fifi with
her just-born baby. At 0:48 you can see
that it is not holding onto Fifi's hair. Its
palm is flat.
. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPEsHvzO6k
The behaviour was already described in 1968 by Jane Goodall in her
paper "The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream
Reserve", section "Support and Transport" on page 224: <https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0066-1856(68)80003-2>
Infants do hold on by gripping the mother's hair between flexed
fingers and toes.
Natura non facit saltus, an essential element of evolution by means of natural selection.Open access:. .
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
Altriciality may be a matter of degree, not an all or nothing feature.. .
Just nonsense. There are two states:
(a) the standard primate one where the
infant holds on 24/7, and
(b) the human one, where the infant is
put down during the day and the night,
only being held for feeding, or for
comfort -- insofar as the mother has
sufficient leisure for that luxury.
Of course. It's only 'sudden' on an. .Altriciality may be a matter of degree, not an all or nothing feature.. .
Just nonsense. There are two states:
(a) the standard primate one where the
infant holds on 24/7, and
(b) the human one, where the infant is
put down during the day and the night,
only being held for feeding, or for
comfort -- insofar as the mother has
sufficient leisure for that luxury.
Natura non facit saltus, an essential element of evolution by means of natural selection.
. .
On Tuesday 31 May 2022 at 12:50:05 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
Of course. It's only 'sudden' on an. .Altriciality may be a matter of degree, not an all or nothing feature. >>>. .Just nonsense. There are two states:
(a) the standard primate one where the
infant holds on 24/7, and
(b) the human one, where the infant is
put down during the day and the night,
only being held for feeding, or for
comfort -- insofar as the mother has
sufficient leisure for that luxury.
Natura non facit saltus, an essential element of evolution by means of
natural selection.
. .
evolutionary timescale -- maybe 400
generations, or that may be too fast.
However, I am setting out a scenario
under which natural selection can operate.
In each generation, there will be mothers
who prefer to follow their ancient (>50 Myr)
instincts, and hold onto their infants on a
24/7 (or close) basis. While there are also
mothers who put their infants down,
tolerate the screaming protests, and get
on with finding and preparing food (or
whatever the urgent task was). They are
the ones who do better for their children
and grandchildren.
The infant also has to change. It becomes
altricial. Its arms shrink, and it becomes
fat, thereby better insulated against cold
(by day and especially at night). Females
have to start acquiring fat (to pass on to
the infant) and adapt to heavier babies.
What is your scenario? Mothers gradually,
and for no reason whatsoever, reduce
their holding of their infant -- a few seconds
less per day in each generation . . . . ?
Please expatiate. I'm sure that there is an
immense literature on the topic. After all,
we all know that infant-rearing is central
to the discipline.
Wait a minute, do you acknowledge Jane Goodall's observation that
I snipped it because nothing of much significanceHowever, I am setting out a scenario. .
under which natural selection can operate.
In each generation, there will be mothers
who prefer to follow their ancient (>50 Myr)
instincts, and hold onto their infants on a
24/7 (or close) basis. While there are also
mothers who put their infants down,
tolerate the screaming protests, and get
on with finding and preparing food (or
whatever the urgent task was). They are
the ones who do better for their children
and grandchildren.
. .
The infant also has to change. It becomes
altricial. Its arms shrink, and it becomes
fat, thereby better insulated against cold
(by day and especially at night). Females
have to start acquiring fat (to pass on to
the infant) and adapt to heavier babies.
. .
What is your scenario? Mothers gradually,
and for no reason whatsoever, reduce
their holding of their infant -- a few seconds
less per day in each generation . . . . ?
. .
Please expatiate. I'm sure that there is an
immense literature on the topic. After all,
we all know that infant-rearing is central
to the discipline.
Wait a minute, do you acknowledge Jane Goodall's observation that
chimp infants kling to their mothers by gripping their hair between
flexed fingers and toes?
Do you stand corrected or do you still prefer your own armchair
observation over her field observations?
You tried to sneak away from that by snipping it, didn't you?
. .
On Thursday 2 June 2022 at 13:17:00 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
I snipped it because nothing of much significanceHowever, I am setting out a scenario. .
under which natural selection can operate.
In each generation, there will be mothers
who prefer to follow their ancient (>50 Myr)
instincts, and hold onto their infants on a
24/7 (or close) basis. While there are also
mothers who put their infants down,
tolerate the screaming protests, and get
on with finding and preparing food (or
whatever the urgent task was). They are
the ones who do better for their children
and grandchildren.
. .
The infant also has to change. It becomes
altricial. Its arms shrink, and it becomes
fat, thereby better insulated against cold
(by day and especially at night). Females
have to start acquiring fat (to pass on to
the infant) and adapt to heavier babies.
. .
What is your scenario? Mothers gradually,
and for no reason whatsoever, reduce
their holding of their infant -- a few seconds
less per day in each generation . . . . ?
. .
Please expatiate. I'm sure that there is an
immense literature on the topic. After all,
we all know that infant-rearing is central
to the discipline.
Wait a minute, do you acknowledge Jane Goodall's observation that
chimp infants kling to their mothers by gripping their hair between
flexed fingers and toes?
Do you stand corrected or do you still prefer your own armchair
observation over her field observations?
You tried to sneak away from that by snipping it, didn't you?
. .
hangs on the answer. I'm reluctant to question
Jane Goodall,
but 'grasping hair' is the standard
notion, and it's possible that she never questioned
it, nor looked closely.
If chimp infants grip hair
then there would likely be bare patches on the
mother's skin. These are never observed.
Maybe
mothers have extra-strong hair and hair-roots in
those locations. Certainly as chimp infants grow
you usually know of their presence only from
seeing their hands on the backs or sides of the
mother. The question here is whether or not
new-borns have arms long enough to grip in
that way. If not, they're not far off. That video,
at which I pointed, shows that the infant does
not grip with its thumb -- which is what we'd
expect if hair was being held. Maybe it flexes
the tips of its very long fingers to hold its
mother's hair. Seems unlikely to me.
Wait a minute, did you just raise this
incidental point merely to avoid answering
difficult questions?
On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Paul CrowleyPC loves his stories.
<yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday 2 June 2022 at 13:17:00 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
Why?I snipped it because nothing of much significanceHowever, I am setting out a scenario. .
under which natural selection can operate.
In each generation, there will be mothers
who prefer to follow their ancient (>50 Myr)
instincts, and hold onto their infants on a
24/7 (or close) basis. While there are also
mothers who put their infants down,
tolerate the screaming protests, and get
on with finding and preparing food (or
whatever the urgent task was). They are
the ones who do better for their children
and grandchildren.
. .
The infant also has to change. It becomes
altricial. Its arms shrink, and it becomes
fat, thereby better insulated against cold
(by day and especially at night). Females
have to start acquiring fat (to pass on to
the infant) and adapt to heavier babies.
. .
What is your scenario? Mothers gradually,
and for no reason whatsoever, reduce
their holding of their infant -- a few seconds
less per day in each generation . . . . ?
. .
Please expatiate. I'm sure that there is an
immense literature on the topic. After all,
we all know that infant-rearing is central
to the discipline.
Wait a minute, do you acknowledge Jane Goodall's observation that
chimp infants kling to their mothers by gripping their hair between
flexed fingers and toes?
Do you stand corrected or do you still prefer your own armchair
observation over her field observations?
You tried to sneak away from that by snipping it, didn't you?
. .
hangs on the answer. I'm reluctant to question
Jane Goodall,
Usually you don't have any trouble being an arrogant big mouth who
pours scorn on authority.
but 'grasping hair' is the standardShe never looked closely? Really?! https://tanzaniaspecialist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Gombe-Stream-National-park-Jane-Goodall-and-Chimpanzees.jpg
notion, and it's possible that she never questioned
it, nor looked closely.
If chimp infants grip hairIt was observed on the groin of male chimp Spindle after adopting Mel. There's a photograph in Goodall's book "Through a Window": https://books.google.nl/books?id=Gc59YpamCvgC&lpg=PP1&hl=nl&pg=PT315#v=onepage&q&f=false
then there would likely be bare patches on the
mother's skin. These are never observed.
The caption reads:
"Three weeks after losing his mother, Mel had bonded with a twelve-year-old adolescent male,
Spindle. Spindle cared for him as a mother will for her infant. Note the hairless patch on Spindle's
groin where Mel so often gripped with his feet."
MaybeAnd you really couldn't find anything better than such low quality
mothers have extra-strong hair and hair-roots in
those locations. Certainly as chimp infants grow
you usually know of their presence only from
seeing their hands on the backs or sides of the
mother. The question here is whether or not
new-borns have arms long enough to grip in
that way. If not, they're not far off. That video,
at which I pointed, shows that the infant does
not grip with its thumb -- which is what we'd
expect if hair was being held. Maybe it flexes
the tips of its very long fingers to hold its
mother's hair. Seems unlikely to me.
footage? Or was that deliberate, so you could freely speculate on what
you wish to see?
Take a good look as these photographs: https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/9e231aff4483d20b6f7a7128d75a614d https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1fdbe3c9c65217ec16701d328c8d4746-lq >Wait a minute, did you just raise this
incidental point merely to avoid answeringI wanted to demonstrate how useless is any discussion with you,
difficult questions?
because even when the facts stare you in the face you're not willing
to admit them. You thrive only on untestable speculation.
but 'grasping hair' is the standard. .
notion, and it's possible that she never questioned
it, nor looked closely.
She never looked closely? Really?!
If chimp infants grip hair. .
then there would likely be bare patches on the
mother's skin. These are never observed.
It was observed on the groin of male chimp Spindle after adopting Mel. There's a photograph in Goodall's book "Through a Window": https://books.google.nl/books?id=Gc59YpamCvgC&lpg=PP1&hl=nl&pg=PT315#v=onepage&q&f=false
. .
The caption reads:
"Three weeks after losing his mother, Mel had bonded with a twelve-year-old adolescent male,
Spindle. Spindle cared for him as a mother will for her infant. Note the hairless patch on Spindle's
groin where Mel so often gripped with his feet."
And you really couldn't find anything better than such low quality
footage? Or was that deliberate, so you could freely speculate on what
you wish to see?
Take a good look as these photographs: https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/9e231aff4483d20b6f7a7128d75a614d https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1fdbe3c9c65217ec16701d328c8d4746-lq
Wait a minute, did you just raise this. .
incidental point merely to avoid answering
difficult questions?
I wanted to demonstrate how useless is any discussion with you,
because even when the facts stare you in the face
you're not willing
to admit them. You thrive only on untestable speculation.
On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:50:05 AM UTC-4, Pandora wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley
<yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday 30 May 2022 at 12:01:32 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
. .Wow, this is quite the paper. Locking knee. No evidence of knuckle >>>> walking. Arboreal origin of bipedalism.... .
And arboreal altricial infants:
"Look mama, no hands".
We're pretty certain that apith infants had hands,
The image I was portraying was somethingNo, that's not what you can see in this short and blurry fragment.
like that of a human baby (if an australopith
here) standing and walking on a tree branch
demonstrating its balancing capabilities to
its proud parents.
. .
Only there's not much hair left to hold on to.. .
Chimp infants are born with long strong
arms, which they can wrap around their
mother's body. See this video of Fifi with
her just-born baby. At 0:48 you can see
that it is not holding onto Fifi's hair. Its
palm is flat.
. .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPEsHvzO6k
The behaviour was already described in 1968 by Jane Goodall in her
paper "The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve", section "Support and Transport" on page 224: <https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0066-1856(68)80003-2>
Infants do hold on by gripping the mother's hair between flexed
fingers and toes.
Natura non facit saltus, an essential element of evolution by means of natural selection.Open access:. .
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03321-z
Altriciality may be a matter of degree, not an all or nothing feature. >. .Just nonsense. There are two states:
(a) the standard primate one where the
infant holds on 24/7, and
(b) the human one, where the infant is
put down during the day and the night,
only being held for feeding, or for
comfort -- insofar as the mother has
sufficient leisure for that luxury.
Human infants stare at their mothers faces, but reach for their mothers hair. Not their mothers hands, breasts, fur-less belly. Human infants grasp parental scalp hair and beard with grasping fingers, not toes.
On Thursday 2 June 2022 at 18:00:15 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
but 'grasping hair' is the standard. .
notion, and it's possible that she never questioned
it, nor looked closely.
She never looked closely? Really?!
It's VERY easy to miss something in
front of your eyes, day after day, if
the question never arises.
If chimp infants grip hair. .
then there would likely be bare patches on the
mother's skin. These are never observed.
It was observed on the groin of male chimp Spindle after adopting Mel.
There's a photograph in Goodall's book "Through a Window":
https://books.google.nl/books?id=Gc59YpamCvgC&lpg=PP1&hl=nl&pg=PT315#v=onepage&q&f=false
. .
The caption reads:
"Three weeks after losing his mother, Mel had bonded with a twelve-year-old adolescent male,
Spindle. Spindle cared for him as a mother will for her infant. Note the hairless patch on Spindle's
groin where Mel so often gripped with his feet."
I did remember that image, and that
story, and had I any real interest in this
sub-sub-topic, I might have bothered to
look for it.
Maybe there are differences between
male and female chimps, as regards
their basic anatomy or skin cover or
type of hair, which results in bare
patches on males when performing this
role. Maybe the adolescent male in this
case (Spindle) just didn't know how to
get the infant to hold on properly.
And you really couldn't find anything better than such low quality
footage? Or was that deliberate, so you could freely speculate on what
you wish to see?
I didn't bother to look. I've very little
interest in this sub-sub-topic. Have I
told you that already?
Take a good look as these photographs:
https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/9e231aff4483d20b6f7a7128d75a614d
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1fdbe3c9c65217ec16701d328c8d4746-lq
These infants seem to be grasping folds
of skin, using their thumbs, and not
hair as such.
Wait a minute, did you just raise this. .
incidental point merely to avoid answering
difficult questions?
I wanted to demonstrate how useless is any discussion with you,
because even when the facts stare you in the face
No one likes having their hair pulled.
It's not designed (in every animal that
I can think of) for bearing weight. The
images you show indicate that chimp
infants sometimes grip folds of hairy
skin. Perhaps mothers can cope with
very small ones holding on to hair
for a short time. But they'd rapidly
discourage that.
you're not willing
to admit them. You thrive only on untestable speculation.
I thrive on serious questions, that are
fundamental to the discipline. For a
set of peculiar historical reasons, those
questions are completely ignored by
those currently claiming to practise it.
I wouldn't be here if that was not the
case. It's a state of affairs almost
unthinkable in any other field of
biology.
You first have to do the thinking, and
set out possible scenarios. Usually
there aren't many. In PA it's common
for there to be none at all -- a total
blank. That's your position, and you
think it's fine. That's your 'training'.
Ancestral population X went from
State A to State B, following some
process of selection. How? Why?
Who knows? Who cares? It's only my
special area of 'study' . . . my 'discipline'.
Once you have some possible
scenarios, you can set out theories, and
hopefully clarify how they might be
tested. No one questions that humans
(and hominins going back a long way)
have a very different system of infant-
rearing from that of other apes.
Nothing could be more fundamental to
the hominin niche and its ecology. Yet
there is not one paper on the topic in
the whole of the 'science'. There is not
one sensible attempt to deal with the
issue of predation on hominins. No
seeks to explain the sheer scarcity of
hominin fossils on the African landscape
(in comparison with those of other
terrestrial species). There are no serious
attempts to explain conspicuous
features of human physiology or
anatomy . . our sweating out of vital
salts, our level of fat requirements. The
vast quantities of bifaces apparently
need no explanation
It's VERY easy to miss something in
front of your eyes, day after day, if
the question never arises.
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.
Your attitude implies that nothing can ever by decided through
observation, one of the most basic aspects of empirical science.
Maybe there are differences between. .
male and female chimps, as regards
their basic anatomy or skin cover or
type of hair, which results in bare
patches on males when performing this
role. Maybe the adolescent male in this
case (Spindle) just didn't know how to
get the infant to hold on properly.
Once placed in position it's the infant that determines how to hold on
in ventral position and there aren't many options.
In the first image you can clearly see that the foot is perpendicular
to the skin of the mother and that the toes are flexed against the
sole. This is only compatible with holding hair, not a skinfold.
In the second image you can see bare skin of the mother right above
the hand of the infant, indicating that it's the hair that parts due
to traction, not the skin.
So, there's two lines of evidence here:
1. A detailed report by someone who spent years observing chimps
close-up in the field.
2. Photographs that show it when you look carefully.
Like I said, even when the facts stare you in the face it's still
wishful thinking that determines what you see.
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:34:12 PM UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
It's VERY easy to miss something in
front of your eyes, day after day, if
the question never arises.
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.How do you know -- about the 'explicit
attention' ?
Your attitude implies that nothing can ever by decided throughI'm more sceptical than most, and when
observation, one of the most basic aspects of empirical science.
I read or hear something that doesn't make
sense, I question it. I've had my hair pulled
by a child (as have most adults) in roughly
that kind of situation and it's not pleasant.
Just silly. If the mother finds it uncomfortableMaybe there are differences between. .
male and female chimps, as regards
their basic anatomy or skin cover or
type of hair, which results in bare
patches on males when performing this
role. Maybe the adolescent male in this
case (Spindle) just didn't know how to
get the infant to hold on properly.
Once placed in position it's the infant that determines how to hold on
in ventral position and there aren't many options.
she'll re-arrange the infant's foot or whatever
and soon make it clear what works and what
doesn't.
In the first image you can clearly see that the foot is perpendicularWhy did Spindle get bare patches,
to the skin of the mother and that the toes are flexed against the
sole. This is only compatible with holding hair, not a skinfold.
when experienced mothers don't?
In the second image you can see bare skin of the mother right aboveSome hair is dislodged. That doesn't
the hand of the infant, indicating that it's the hair that parts due
to traction, not the skin.
mean that it and other hairs are bearing
weight.
So, there's two lines of evidence here:Absolutely nothing hangs on this sub-
1. A detailed report by someone who spent years observing chimps
close-up in the field.
2. Photographs that show it when you look carefully.
sub-topic.
Do you know of any other mammal
that uses its hair to bear weight?
Like I said, even when the facts stare you in the face it's stillYou are just credulous, incapable of
wishful thinking that determines what you see.
questioning what you read, if that's
what appears to be the assumed
and unthinking consensus.
Do you take the Daily Mail?
On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:34:12 PM UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
It's VERY easy to miss something in
front of your eyes, day after day, if
the question never arises.
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.
How do you know -- about the 'explicit
attention' ?
Your attitude implies that nothing can ever by decided through
observation, one of the most basic aspects of empirical science.
I'm more sceptical than most, and when
I read or hear something that doesn't make
sense, I question it. I've had my hair pulled
by a child (as have most adults) in roughly
that kind of situation and it's not pleasant.
Maybe there are differences between. .
male and female chimps, as regards
their basic anatomy or skin cover or
type of hair, which results in bare
patches on males when performing this
role. Maybe the adolescent male in this
case (Spindle) just didn't know how to
get the infant to hold on properly.
Once placed in position it's the infant that determines how to hold on
in ventral position and there aren't many options.
Just silly. If the mother finds it uncomfortable
she'll re-arrange the infant's foot or whatever
and soon make it clear what works and what
doesn't.
In the first image you can clearly see that the foot is perpendicular
to the skin of the mother and that the toes are flexed against the
sole. This is only compatible with holding hair, not a skinfold.
Why did Spindle get bare patches,
when experienced mothers don't?
In the second image you can see bare skin of the mother right above
the hand of the infant, indicating that it's the hair that parts due
to traction, not the skin.
Some hair is dislodged. That doesn't
mean that it and other hairs are bearing
weight.
So, there's two lines of evidence here:
1. A detailed report by someone who spent years observing chimps
close-up in the field.
2. Photographs that show it when you look carefully.
Absolutely nothing hangs on this sub-
sub-topic.
Do you know of any other mammal
that uses its hair to bear weight?
Like I said, even when the facts stare you in the face it's still
wishful thinking that determines what you see.
You are just credulous, incapable of
questioning what you read, if that's
what appears to be the assumed
and unthinking consensus.
I snipped it because nothing of much significance
hangs on the answer. I'm reluctant to question
Jane Goodall
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.
How do you know -- about the 'explicit
attention' ?
Because in her first major publication in 1968 see dedicates an entire chapter to mother-offspring relationships, explicitly to the subject
of support and transport (IV 3c p.224).
RTFP!
. .Once placed in position it's the infant that determines how to hold on. .
in ventral position and there aren't many options.
Just silly. If the mother finds it uncomfortable
she'll re-arrange the infant's foot or whatever
and soon make it clear what works and what
doesn't.
Transport in the ventral position is rather invariant,
with the foot
usually in the area of the groin and the hand on the side of the torso halfway between armpit and groin.
In the first image you can clearly see that the foot is perpendicular
to the skin of the mother and that the toes are flexed against the
sole. This is only compatible with holding hair, not a skinfold.
Why did Spindle get bare patches,
when experienced mothers don't?
When the infant grows older it becomes heavier, which results in more traction on the hair. At three years old Mel was due for more frequent transport in dorsal position,
So, there's two lines of evidence here:
1. A detailed report by someone who spent years observing chimps
close-up in the field.
2. Photographs that show it when you look carefully.
Absolutely nothing hangs on this sub-
sub-topic.
Well, then it shouldn't be to hard for you to admit that you're wrong.
If only your ego didn't get in the way.
At some point a rational person is convinced by all the available
evidence. Your denial of the facts is pathological.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 06:21:36 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley
<yelworcp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday 2 June 2022 at 18:00:15 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
but 'grasping hair' is the standard. .
notion, and it's possible that she never questioned
it, nor looked closely.
She never looked closely? Really?!
It's VERY easy to miss something in
front of your eyes, day after day, if
the question never arises.
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.
Your attitude implies that nothing can ever by decided through
observation, one of the most basic aspects of empirical science.
On Monday 6 June 2022 at 09:18:02 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.
How do you know -- about the 'explicit
attention' ?
Because in her first major publication in 1968 see dedicates an entire
chapter to mother-offspring relationships, explicitly to the subject
of support and transport (IV 3c p.224).
RTFP!
. .Once placed in position it's the infant that determines how to hold on >>>> in ventral position and there aren't many options.. .
Just silly. If the mother finds it uncomfortable
she'll re-arrange the infant's foot or whatever
and soon make it clear what works and what
doesn't.
Transport in the ventral position is rather invariant,
The bulk of the weight transmits through
the infant's arms. It obviously increases
with age and size, and the arms of infant's
older than ~3 months reach to the sides of
the mother's "waist", where any observer
can see them sticking out on her back.
So the question of hair-pulling should not
arise. Can smaller infants (e.g. new-born)
do this? If they can, again no hair-pulling;
if they can't, perhaps there is some hair-
pulling and the mother tolerates it, as the
infant does not weigh much. But she
would still encourage skin-fold gripping.
with the foot
usually in the area of the groin and the hand on the side of the torso
halfway between armpit and groin.
The infant's foot is basically a hand at
the end of the leg. I'd bet that it normally
holds on to something more than hair.
But it can't be easily seen.
In the first image you can clearly see that the foot is perpendicular
to the skin of the mother and that the toes are flexed against the
sole. This is only compatible with holding hair, not a skinfold.
In none of those images can you see the
thumb, nor (for the foot) the big toe
(the 'thumb' on the foot). They could
all be holding on to skin folds.
Why did Spindle get bare patches,
when experienced mothers don't?
When the infant grows older it becomes heavier, which results in more
traction on the hair. At three years old Mel was due for more frequent
transport in dorsal position,
The dorsal position is fine when crossing
open ground. But chimps often go through
(and under) low vegetation (where humans
can't follow) and which makes the dorsal
position unviable. Although I think we
agree that Spindle's inexperience was a
major factor. However that resulted in his
hair being pulled out. That doesn't happen
with experienced mothers -- presumably
because they make their infants hold on
to something more than hair. Which is
what I am saying, and you are denying.
So, there's two lines of evidence here:
1. A detailed report by someone who spent years observing chimps
close-up in the field.
2. Photographs that show it when you look carefully.
Absolutely nothing hangs on this sub-
sub-topic.
Well, then it shouldn't be to hard for you to admit that you're wrong.
If only your ego didn't get in the way.
I attribute more intelligence to chimp
mothers than you, or most. They would
have little difficulty training their infants
to hold onto skin folds, rather than hair,
if that was more comfortable for them
(as it usually would be).
At some point a rational person is convinced by all the available
evidence. Your denial of the facts is pathological.
Your unquestioning belief in an inherently
irrational system, based on superficial
inspections, and on sets of assumed
'facts', is as depressing as it is predictable.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT), Paul Crowley
<yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday 6 June 2022 at 09:18:02 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
Goodall was fresh in the field and gave it explicit attention.
How do you know -- about the 'explicit
attention' ?
Because in her first major publication in 1968 see dedicates an entire
chapter to mother-offspring relationships, explicitly to the subject
of support and transport (IV 3c p.224).
RTFP!
. .Once placed in position it's the infant that determines how to hold on >>>> in ventral position and there aren't many options.. .
Just silly. If the mother finds it uncomfortable
she'll re-arrange the infant's foot or whatever
and soon make it clear what works and what
doesn't.
Transport in the ventral position is rather invariant,
The bulk of the weight transmits through
the infant's arms. It obviously increases
with age and size, and the arms of infant's
older than ~3 months reach to the sides of
the mother's "waist", where any observer
can see them sticking out on her back.
So the question of hair-pulling should not
arise. Can smaller infants (e.g. new-born)
do this? If they can, again no hair-pulling;
if they can't, perhaps there is some hair-
pulling and the mother tolerates it, as the
infant does not weigh much. But she
would still encourage skin-fold gripping.
with the foot
usually in the area of the groin and the hand on the side of the torso
halfway between armpit and groin.
The infant's foot is basically a hand atWhen you grab a tuft of hair it's obvious that from a certain
the end of the leg. I'd bet that it normally
holds on to something more than hair.
But it can't be easily seen.
perspective the fingers and thumb (toes) will be partially obscured by
those hairs because they coil around it.
In the first image you can clearly see that the foot is perpendicular >>>> to the skin of the mother and that the toes are flexed against the
sole. This is only compatible with holding hair, not a skinfold.
In none of those images can you see the
thumb, nor (for the foot) the big toe
(the 'thumb' on the foot). They could
all be holding on to skin folds.
Why did Spindle get bare patches,
when experienced mothers don't?
When the infant grows older it becomes heavier, which results in more
traction on the hair. At three years old Mel was due for more frequent
transport in dorsal position,
The dorsal position is fine when crossing
open ground. But chimps often go through
(and under) low vegetation (where humans
can't follow) and which makes the dorsal
position unviable. Although I think we
agree that Spindle's inexperience was a
major factor. However that resulted in his
hair being pulled out. That doesn't happen
with experienced mothers -- presumably
because they make their infants hold on
to something more than hair. Which is
what I am saying, and you are denying.
So, there's two lines of evidence here:
1. A detailed report by someone who spent years observing chimps
close-up in the field.
2. Photographs that show it when you look carefully.
Absolutely nothing hangs on this sub-
sub-topic.
Well, then it shouldn't be to hard for you to admit that you're wrong.
If only your ego didn't get in the way.
I attribute more intelligence to chimp
mothers than you, or most. They would
have little difficulty training their infants
to hold onto skin folds, rather than hair,
if that was more comfortable for them
(as it usually would be).
At some point a rational person is convinced by all the available
evidence. Your denial of the facts is pathological.
Your unquestioning belief in an inherentlyIt seems that you are unable to play the normal language game with the
irrational system, based on superficial
inspections, and on sets of assumed
'facts', is as depressing as it is predictable.
words "doubt", "know", "fact", etc. Any reasonable person would say
that here you have no grounds for doubt, other than pathological
distrust and your preconceptions of how things must be.
When you grab a tuft of hair
When you grab a tuft of hair it's obvious that from a certain
perspective the fingers and thumb (toes) will be partially obscured by
those hairs because they coil around it.
Your unquestioning belief in an inherently
irrational system, based on superficial
inspections, and on sets of assumed
'facts', is as depressing as it is predictable.
It seems that you are unable to play the normal language game with the
words "doubt", "know", "fact", etc. Any reasonable person would say
that here you have no grounds for doubt, other than pathological
distrust and your preconceptions of how things must be.
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:06:43 -0700 (PDT), Paul CrowleyCute kid, looks like a diver with that blown-back hairstyle.
<yelw...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 8 June 2022 at 12:17:24 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
When you grab a tuft of hair
Primates, such as chimps, don't have tuftsChimps have hair all over their bodies, and when you grab a bunch it's
of hair.
a tuft.
When you grab a tuft of hair it's obvious that from a certain
perspective the fingers and thumb (toes) will be partially obscured by
those hairs because they coil around it.
So you (and other observers) don'tIt's a fact, as such observed by Jane Goodall on many occasions.
know whether or not the infant chimp
is grasping a handful of hair or a hair-
covered skin fold. You just assume the
former, because that's the traditional
assumption. It's NOT a fact.
What grounds do you have to doubt her?
Not your own field observations.
Your unquestioning belief in an inherently
irrational system, based on superficial
inspections, and on sets of assumed
'facts', is as depressing as it is predictable.
It seems that you are unable to play the normal language game with the
words "doubt", "know", "fact", etc. Any reasonable person would say
that here you have no grounds for doubt, other than pathological
distrust and your preconceptions of how things must be.
You have not come up with any mammalIt's the standard among practically all primates that carry their
that allows its hair to be used to carry
weight.
infants in ventral position.
"don't think, but look!" https://2pat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/woolly-monkey.jpg?w=809
On Wednesday 8 June 2022 at 12:17:24 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
When you grab a tuft of hair
Primates, such as chimps, don't have tufts
of hair.
When you grab a tuft of hair it's obvious that from a certain
perspective the fingers and thumb (toes) will be partially obscured by
those hairs because they coil around it.
So you (and other observers) don't
know whether or not the infant chimp
is grasping a handful of hair or a hair-
covered skin fold. You just assume the
former, because that's the traditional
assumption. It's NOT a fact.
Your unquestioning belief in an inherently
irrational system, based on superficial
inspections, and on sets of assumed
'facts', is as depressing as it is predictable.
It seems that you are unable to play the normal language game with the
words "doubt", "know", "fact", etc. Any reasonable person would say
that here you have no grounds for doubt, other than pathological
distrust and your preconceptions of how things must be.
You have not come up with any mammal
that allows its hair to be used to carry
weight.
Primates, such as chimps, don't have tufts. .
of hair.
Chimps have hair all over their bodies, and when you grab a bunch it's
a tuft.
. .When you grab a tuft of hair it's obvious that from a certain. .
perspective the fingers and thumb (toes) will be partially obscured by
those hairs because they coil around it.
So you (and other observers) don't
know whether or not the infant chimp
is grasping a handful of hair or a hair-
covered skin fold. You just assume the
former, because that's the traditional
assumption. It's NOT a fact.
It's a fact, as such observed by Jane Goodall on many occasions.
What grounds do you have to doubt her?
You have not come up with any mammal. .
that allows its hair to be used to carry
weight.
It's the standard among practically all primates that carry their
infants in ventral position.
https://2pat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/woolly-monkey.jpg?w=809
On Saturday 11 June 2022 at 11:32:03 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
Primates, such as chimps, don't have tufts. .
of hair.
Chimps have hair all over their bodies, and when you grab a bunch it's
a tuft.
Definition of 'tuft': a bunch or collection of threads, grass, hair, etc., held or growing together at the base.
Mammalian hairs grow individually with
no links at their base.
. .When you grab a tuft of hair it's obvious that from a certain. .
perspective the fingers and thumb (toes) will be partially obscured by >>>> those hairs because they coil around it.
So you (and other observers) don't
know whether or not the infant chimp
is grasping a handful of hair or a hair-
covered skin fold. You just assume the
former, because that's the traditional
assumption. It's NOT a fact.
It's a fact, as such observed by Jane Goodall on many occasions.
What grounds do you have to doubt her?
The 'observation' is difficult to virtually
impossible. You'd need to closely
inspect the infant's hand (or foot) while
in the act. Mothers would rarely allow
that.
You have not come up with any mammal. .
that allows its hair to be used to carry
weight.
It's the standard among practically all primates that carry their
infants in ventral position.
You believe that primate infants grasp
hair. I ask for examples of mammalian
hairs bearing weight. You quote your
belief as evidence for your belief.
https://2pat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/woolly-monkey.jpg?w=809
That tiny baby may well be gripping a
skin fold of its mother -- with its one
visible hand and one visible foot. We
just can't tell.
It's so small (in relation to
the mother) that she may allow it to
hold on by hair alone. But, in any case,
as soon as it gained weight, the mother
would insist on skin-fold gripping
. .https://2pat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/woolly-monkey.jpg?w=809. .
That tiny baby may well be gripping a
skin fold of its mother -- with its one
visible hand and one visible foot. We
just can't tell.
You can clearly see there's nothing else but hair between its fingers
and toes, and particularly at the foot you can see that the hair is
straight under tension.
It's so small (in relation to. .
the mother) that she may allow it to
hold on by hair alone. But, in any case,
as soon as it gained weight, the mother
would insist on skin-fold gripping
When the infant becomes older it will move to dorsal position, as in
the case of this Gelada, but stil stabilize itself by gripping hair.
<https://c8.alamy.com/comp/WW9F96/close-up-of-an-infant-gelada-monkey-being-carried-on-the-back-by-its-mother-simien-mountains-ethiopia-WW9F96.jpg>
On Monday 13 June 2022 at 11:25:50 UTC+1, Pandora wrote:
. .https://2pat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/woolly-monkey.jpg?w=809. .
That tiny baby may well be gripping a
skin fold of its mother -- with its one
visible hand and one visible foot. We
just can't tell.
You can clearly see there's nothing else but hair between its fingers
and toes, and particularly at the foot you can see that the hair is
straight under tension.
You can't see the infant's thumb, nor
its big toe. It may well be gripping
folds of skin in both cases.
It's so small (in relation to. .
the mother) that she may allow it to
hold on by hair alone. But, in any case,
as soon as it gained weight, the mother
would insist on skin-fold gripping
When the infant becomes older it will move to dorsal position, as in
the case of this Gelada, but stil stabilize itself by gripping hair.
Gelada live in the open. Most primates
move around in vegetation or among
branches, and infants often have to 'go
ventral'. Mel was three years old, still
commonly in the ventral position.
<https://c8.alamy.com/comp/WW9F96/close-up-of-an-infant-gelada-monkey-being-carried-on-the-back-by-its-mother-simien-mountains-ethiopia-WW9F96.jpg>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 97:18:41 |
| Calls: | 6,766 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,373 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
