https://youtu.be/9kakBfGxhpM
No. "We" were not wrong. I can't speak for you, of
course, but I know damn well that I wasn't wrong...
I remember, back before usenet died, arguing AGAINST
the nimrods over in talk.origins as they contradicted
Young Earth Creationists and thought that made them
intelligent.
Anyhow, I recall explaining to them, though not a one
was capable of grasping it, that if "We evolved from apes"
as a barrier to communication, that if their opponents were
so emotionally invested in that NOT being true, they found
it abhorrent for whatever reason, then just STOP making the
claim. Because, even back then there was strong evidence
that it happened the other way around. That the ape, in the
case of the Chimpanzee, evolved from US!
FIRST came upright walking, THEN came the split from the
Chimpanzee line...
ALSO: As they point out, Ardi is precisely where a species
leaving OR ENTERING AFRICA FROM ASIA would be found.
It's right there by the exceedingly narrow gap at the Red Sea.
ALSO: They get the date of the LCA *Way* wrong. They place
it too old.
Op zaterdag 25 juni 2022 om 19:57:05 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://youtu.be/9kakBfGxhpM
No. "We" were not wrong. I can't speak for you, ofYes, Desilva is very wrong, of course:
course, but I know damn well that I wasn't wrong...
early hominoids were already bipedal & upright, not for running after kudus, but simply for wading in swamp forests & climbing arms overhead in the branches above the swamp.
Google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
I remember, back before usenet died, arguing AGAINSTYes, at least *wading* upright.
the nimrods over in talk.origins as they contradicted
Young Earth Creationists and thought that made them
intelligent.
Anyhow, I recall explaining to them, though not a one
was capable of grasping it, that if "We evolved from apes"
as a barrier to communication, that if their opponents were
so emotionally invested in that NOT being true, they found
it abhorrent for whatever reason, then just STOP making the
claim. Because, even back then there was strong evidence
that it happened the other way around. That the ape, in the
case of the Chimpanzee, evolved from US!
FIRST came upright walking, THEN came the split from the
Chimpanzee line...
ALSO: As they point out, Ardi is precisely where a speciesIn a nutshell: plate tectonics & hominoid evolution IMO:
leaving OR ENTERING AFRICA FROM ASIA would be found.
It's right there by the exceedingly narrow gap at the Red Sea.
ALSO: They get the date of the LCA *Way* wrong. They place
it too old.
-- 30-25 Ma: India approaching Eurasia first formed island arcs, full of coastal forests:
the catarrhines that first reached thse islands became aquarboreal: bipedal waders-climbers,
-- c 20 Ma: India further under Eurasia split great (W) & lesser (E) apes: great apes colonized the W-Tethys coastal forests,
-- c 15 Ma: Mesopotamian Seaway closure split hominids-dryopiths (W) & pongids-sivapiths (E),
cf Trachilos bipedal footprints c 8 Ma, the Pan-Homo-Gorilla LCA colonized the Red Sea,
-- c 8 Ma: Rift formation: Gorilla colonized the Rift -> late-Pliocene afarensis -> early-Pleist.boisei,
Homo-Pan at first remained along the Red Sea,
-- c 5 Ma: the Zanclean Flood opened the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean:
Homo went left (S-Asia), Pan went right // Gorilla -> late-Pliocene africanus -> early-Pleist.robustus,
-- c 2 Ma glacials: H.erectus dived more+more for shellfish:
larger brain, stone tools, island colonizations etc.etc.
Simple, no?
:-)
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, littor...@gmail.com wrote:---
Op zaterdag 25 juni 2022 om 19:57:05 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://youtu.be/9kakBfGxhpM
No. "We" were not wrong. I can't speak for you, ofYes, Desilva is very wrong, of course:
course, but I know damn well that I wasn't wrong...
early hominoids were already bipedal & upright, not for running after kudus, but simply for wading in swamp forests & climbing arms overhead in the branches above the swamp.
Google our TREE paper "Aquarboreal Ancestors?".
I remember, back before usenet died, arguing AGAINSTYes, at least *wading* upright.
the nimrods over in talk.origins as they contradicted
Young Earth Creationists and thought that made them
intelligent.
Anyhow, I recall explaining to them, though not a one
was capable of grasping it, that if "We evolved from apes"
as a barrier to communication, that if their opponents were
so emotionally invested in that NOT being true, they found
it abhorrent for whatever reason, then just STOP making the
claim. Because, even back then there was strong evidence
that it happened the other way around. That the ape, in the
case of the Chimpanzee, evolved from US!
FIRST came upright walking, THEN came the split from the
Chimpanzee line...
ALSO: As they point out, Ardi is precisely where a speciesIn a nutshell: plate tectonics & hominoid evolution IMO:
leaving OR ENTERING AFRICA FROM ASIA would be found.
It's right there by the exceedingly narrow gap at the Red Sea.
ALSO: They get the date of the LCA *Way* wrong. They place
it too old.
-- 30-25 Ma: India approaching Eurasia first formed island arcs, full of coastal forests:
the catarrhines that first reached thse islands became aquarboreal: bipedal waders-climbers,
-- c 20 Ma: India further under Eurasia split great (W) & lesser (E) apes: great apes colonized the W-Tethys coastal forests,
-- c 15 Ma: Mesopotamian Seaway closure split hominids-dryopiths (W) & pongids-sivapiths (E),
cf Trachilos bipedal footprints c 8 Ma, the Pan-Homo-Gorilla LCA colonized the Red Sea,
-- c 8 Ma: Rift formation: Gorilla colonized the Rift -> late-Pliocene afarensis -> early-Pleist.boisei,
Homo-Pan at first remained along the Red Sea,
-- c 5 Ma: the Zanclean Flood opened the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean: Homo went left (S-Asia), Pan went right // Gorilla -> late-Pliocene africanus -> early-Pleist.robustus,
-- c 2 Ma glacials: H.erectus dived more+more for shellfish:
larger brain, stone tools, island colonizations etc.etc.
Simple, no?
:-)
Simple, accurate, parsimonious, unbiased: Homo, The Sheltered Ape.
Says one well-sheltered ape.Simple, accurate, parsimonious, unbiased: Homo, The Sheltered Ape.:-DDD
Idiot!
Op zaterdag 25 juni 2022 om 19:57:05 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://youtu.be/9kakBfGxhpM
No. "We" were not wrong. I can't speak for you, of
course, but I know damn well that I wasn't wrong...
Yes, Desilva is very wrong, of course: early hominoids were already
bipedal & upright, not for running after kudus, but simply for wading
in swamp forests & climbing arms overhead in the branches above the
swamp.
Why do primates live in forests?
Because
they can climb trees and get away from
large terrestrial predators. They still have
to be pretty good in the trees, because
some those predators can climb, and also
because other primates can be nasty and
prey on, or otherwise persecute them.
Can your version of early hominins cope
with chimps in trees?
When they go down to the ground, they
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
On Saturday 25 June 2022 at 22:55:17 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Op zaterdag 25 juni 2022 om 19:57:05 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://youtu.be/9kakBfGxhpM
No. "We" were not wrong. I can't speak for you, of
course, but I know damn well that I wasn't wrong...
Yes, Desilva is very wrong, of course: early hominoids were alreadyOf course, you are wrong -- absolutely and
bipedal & upright, not for running after kudus, but simply for wading
in swamp forests & climbing arms overhead in the branches above the
swamp.
thoroughly wrong. Note that throughout
this 'discussion', there's no mention of the
predators or competitors of early hominins
(or proto-hominins). Living was apparently
easy. The rest of the natural world was
generous, and made a space for these
upright primates.
Why do primates live in forests? Because
they can climb trees and get away from
large terrestrial predators. They still have
to be pretty good in the trees, because
some those predators can climb, and also
because other primates can be nasty and
prey on, or otherwise persecute them.
Can your version of early hominins cope
with chimps in trees? Or will the chimps
outpace them in every respect? (Out-eat
them, out-predate them, etc., etc.)
When they go down to the ground, they
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
when the need arises. That means
(a) retaining grasping big-toes (avoiding
the rigid hominin foot) and
(b) retaining flexible ankles -- to enable
fast vertical climbing.
Both of these rule out obligate bipedalism
(the only bipedalism worth discussion).
Most primates can manage occasional
bipedalism, so it has almost no relevance
in the topic of human evolution.
So come back, and MAYBE claim to be
'right' when you've got a solution to the
issues of predation and competition.
Paul Crowley wrote:
Why do primates live in forests?That's a genuinely stupid question. It's a leading question, one
you ask hoping to steer (or "lead") people into a particular
answer that you FEEL a need to promote.
Not a single one of those "Primates" is bipedal. Yet the ancestor
to humans, to Chimps and in all probability Gorillas was bipedal.
So if all those forest primates are NOT bipedal, and we're looking for something that is bipedal, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN FRIGGING
QUESTION we are looking for something that wasn't in the forest.
Wow. Gosh. I'm in awe of your ability to debase yourself...
BecauseSo if you're an ancestor to Chimps, and you don't like getting
they can climb trees and get away from
large terrestrial predators. They still have
to be pretty good in the trees, because
some those predators can climb, and also
because other primates can be nasty and
prey on, or otherwise persecute them.
killed & eaten by the ancestor to us humans, moving through
the trees is a fantastic survival strategy.
IT'S NOT ABOUT TREE CLIMBING!
Climbing trees is relatively easy for a great many mammals.
But moving BETWEEN trees, on the other hand, is something
that monkeys and Chimps do with ease but us humans not
so much.
Okay, where are we ACCORDING YOUR OWN GODDAMN EVIDENCE?
Forest primates are not bipedal, we're looking for something that is
bipedal so we ruled out a forest environment.
Tree climbing is nonsense. It's not the necessity that mothered the invention. No. No way. It was moving BETWEEN trees. That's what
makes monkeys and Chimps "Arboreal."
Can your version of early hominins copeAnother incredibly STUPID question. The Chimps weren't in trees.
with chimps in trees?
Their ancestors were upright. They were bipedal.
So why did a bipedal species become an arboreal knuckle walker, but
only AFTER splitting from their bipedal relatives? Hmm...
COMPETITION WITH THOSE BIPEDAL ANCESTORS!
When they go down to the ground, theyAgain, STUPID.
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
Humans can climb trees. Modern humans can climb trees. It was
never ever about climbing trees. It was about moving from tree to
tree.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687864248003592192
Hylobatids disprove your claim.
When they go down to the ground, they
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
when the need arises. That means
(a) retaining grasping big-toes (avoiding
the rigid hominin foot) and
(b) retaining flexible ankles -- to enable
fast vertical climbing.
Both of these rule out obligate bipedalism
(the only bipedalism worth discussion).
Hylobatids disprove your claim.
They also have long lower backs and long Achilles tendons
like humans and unlike great apes.
Why do primates live in forests?
That's a genuinely stupid question. It's a leading question, one
you ask hoping to steer (or "lead") people into a particular
answer that you FEEL a need to promote.
Not a single one of those "Primates" is bipedal.
Yet the ancestor
to humans, to Chimps and in all probability Gorillas was bipedal.
Almost all species of primate live in forests.
Not a single one of those "Primates" is bipedal.
Change it to 'evolved in forests' if you want.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:Irrelevant.
Hylobatids disprove your claim.
Foramen maxim, honey cakes.
So besides the fact that Gibbons are Asian so if they are relevantIrrelevant, arboreal bipeds of Old World.
they point to Out of Asia...
They are an arboreal animal that can travel upright but, no, they doArboreal bipedal ape.
not have the anatomy of an upright walker. They have the anatomy
of an arboreal ape.
AND, they are very much as I pointed out: It's not about climbing,
it's about moving through the trees.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/688075122732597248
On Monday 27 June 2022 at 02:33:55 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:They are arboreal bipedal apes.
When they go down to the ground, they
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
when the need arises. That means
(a) retaining grasping big-toes (avoiding
the rigid hominin foot) and
(b) retaining flexible ankles -- to enable
fast vertical climbing.
Both of these rule out obligate bipedalism
(the only bipedalism worth discussion).
Hylobatids disprove your claim.How so? They avoid the ground, usually
getting there only by accident, and then
they get back into the trees as fast as
they can.
They do not, being arboreal. The common ancestors of Homo & hylobatid were larger, probably slightly smaller than bonobos. While hylobatids have the longest canines per body size, and sleep unsheltered; humans have the shortest canines. Of all monkeys,They also have long lower backs and long Achilles tendonsSo what? They are also tiny, quite unlike
like humans and unlike great apes.
great apes and humans. In no way could
they cope with terrestrial predators.
Paul Crowley wrote:
Almost all species of primate live in forests.And they're not bipedal.
anatomy adapted to bipedalism.
Not a single one of those "Primates" is bipedal.
Change it to 'evolved in forests' if you want.You're dodging the point. We're not looking for an arboreal,
forest dwelling ancestor.
have evolved significantly different anatomy. Chimps had
to evolve AWAY from the LCA considerably in order to
adapt to the forest.
The pressure, the selective pressure isn't tree climbing, btw,
it's moving between trees.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/688075122732597248
False.
Foramen maxim, honey cakes.
Irrelevant.
So besides the fact that Gibbons are Asian so if they are relevant
they point to Out of Asia...
Irrelevant
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
False.
You're an idiot.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681475087810052096
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
Foramen maxim, honey cakes.
Irrelevant.No. Wrong. Your gibbons are arboreal animals that can walk
upright, not upright walking animals that can climb trees.
So besides the fact that Gibbons are Asian so if they are relevant
they point to Out of Asia...
IrrelevantI didn't say your cited gibbons were relevant, I said *If* they were relevant...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/681475087810052096
No. Wrong. Your gibbons are arboreal animals that can walk
upright, not upright walking animals that can climb trees.
If A = B, then B = A.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
[...]
You are an idiot of biblical proportions.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687526814715985920
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
No. Wrong. Your gibbons are arboreal animals that can walk
upright, not upright walking animals that can climb trees.
If A = B, then B = A.No. Gibbons have roughly ZERO bipedal adaptations.
by virtue of being apes we can argue that they likely have
waterside ancestors and thus vestigial "adaptations" but that
is hardly relevant.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687526814715985920
On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 7:46:58 PM UTC-4, I Envy JTEM wrote:
Paul Crowley wrote:
Why do primates live in forests?That's a genuinely stupid question. It's a leading question, one
you ask hoping to steer (or "lead") people into a particular
answer that you FEEL a need to promote.
Not a single one of those "Primates" is bipedal. Yet the ancestor
to humans, to Chimps and in all probability Gorillas was bipedal.
So if all those forest primates are NOT bipedal, and we're looking for something that is bipedal, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN FRIGGING
QUESTION we are looking for something that wasn't in the forest.
Wow. Gosh. I'm in awe of your ability to debase yourself...
BecauseSo if you're an ancestor to Chimps, and you don't like getting
they can climb trees and get away from
large terrestrial predators. They still have
to be pretty good in the trees, because
some those predators can climb, and also
because other primates can be nasty and
prey on, or otherwise persecute them.
killed & eaten by the ancestor to us humans, moving through
the trees is a fantastic survival strategy.
IT'S NOT ABOUT TREE CLIMBING!
Climbing trees is relatively easy for a great many mammals.
But moving BETWEEN trees, on the other hand, is something
that monkeys and Chimps do with ease but us humans not
so much.
Okay, where are we ACCORDING YOUR OWN GODDAMN EVIDENCE?
Forest primates are not bipedal, we're looking for something that is bipedal so we ruled out a forest environment.Hylobatids disprove your claim. They also have long lower back and long achilles tendons like humans and unlike great apes. They do not build shelters so retain fur coat like monkeys.
Tree climbing is nonsense. It's not the necessity that mothered the invention. No. No way. It was moving BETWEEN trees. That's what
makes monkeys and Chimps "Arboreal."
Can your version of early hominins copeAnother incredibly STUPID question. The Chimps weren't in trees.
with chimps in trees?
Their ancestors were upright. They were bipedal.
So why did a bipedal species become an arboreal knuckle walker, but
only AFTER splitting from their bipedal relatives? Hmm...
COMPETITION WITH THOSE BIPEDAL ANCESTORS!
When they go down to the ground, theyAgain, STUPID.
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
Humans can climb trees. Modern humans can climb trees. It was
never ever about climbing trees. It was about moving from tree to
tree.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/687864248003592192
On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 4:35:52 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:
On Saturday 25 June 2022 at 22:55:17 UTC+1, littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Op zaterdag 25 juni 2022 om 19:57:05 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://youtu.be/9kakBfGxhpM
No. "We" were not wrong. I can't speak for you, of
course, but I know damn well that I wasn't wrong...
Yes, Desilva is very wrong, of course: early hominoids were already bipedal & upright, not for running after kudus, but simply for wadingOf course, you are wrong -- absolutely and
in swamp forests & climbing arms overhead in the branches above the swamp.
thoroughly wrong. Note that throughout
this 'discussion', there's no mention of the
predators or competitors of early hominins
(or proto-hominins). Living was apparently
easy. The rest of the natural world was
generous, and made a space for these
upright primates.
Why do primates live in forests? Because
they can climb trees and get away from
large terrestrial predators. They still have
to be pretty good in the trees, because
some those predators can climb, and also
because other primates can be nasty and
prey on, or otherwise persecute them.
Can your version of early hominins cope
with chimps in trees? Or will the chimps
outpace them in every respect? (Out-eat
them, out-predate them, etc., etc.)
When they go down to the ground, theyHylobatids disprove your claim. They also have long lower backs and long Achilles tendons like humans and unlike great apes. They do not build shelters, so retain fur coat like monkeys.
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
when the need arises. That means
(a) retaining grasping big-toes (avoiding
the rigid hominin foot) and
(b) retaining flexible ankles -- to enable
fast vertical climbing.
Both of these rule out obligate bipedalism
(the only bipedalism worth discussion).
Most primates can manage occasional
bipedalism, so it has almost no relevance
in the topic of human evolution.
So come back, and MAYBE claim to be
'right' when you've got a solution to the
issues of predation and competition.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
No. Gibbons have roughly ZERO bipedal adaptations.
Try to stop
Hide in your shelter
. .When they go down to the ground, they. .
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
when the need arises. That means
(a) retaining grasping big-toes (avoiding
the rigid hominin foot) and
(b) retaining flexible ankles -- to enable
fast vertical climbing.
Both of these rule out obligate bipedalism
(the only bipedalism worth discussion).
Hylobatids disprove your claim.
How so? They avoid the ground, usually. .
getting there only by accident, and then
they get back into the trees as fast as
they can.
They are arboreal bipedal apes.
Your error is thinking that upright bipedalism began on the ground.
Humans are derived from arboreal bipedalists with slow brachiation.
. .They also have long lower backs and long Achilles tendons. .
like humans and unlike great apes.
So what? They are also tiny, quite unlike
great apes and humans. In no way could
they cope with terrestrial predators.
The common ancestors of Homo & hylobatid were larger, probably
slightly smaller than bonobos.
While hylobatids have the longest canines per body size
humans have the shortest canines.
. .Almost all species of primate live in forests.And they're not bipedal.
False. Hylobatids are obligate bipedal arboreal apes.
Only the Homo line has evolved an
anatomy adapted to bipedalism.
False.
Homo has improved the energy efficiency of bipedalism.
We're looking for ancestors who
have evolved significantly different anatomy. Chimps had
to evolve AWAY from the LCA considerably in order to
adapt to the forest.
It's also noteworthy that there is a great argument to be
made that apes, all apes, descent from a waterside
(littoral) ancestor, so we might predict vestiges.
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
No. Gibbons have roughly ZERO bipedal adaptations.
Try to stophttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2766056/
No, nothing there screams "Adaptations to bipedalism."
Certainly the go-to test is the foramen magnum and they
fail that one with flying ape poop. So looking at the muscles
and joints we don't see adaptations geared towards upright
walking, we see adaptations that may be applied to limited,
inefficient method of bipedal locomotion... which is not
interesting at all. There's no shortage of animals which can
walk upright in a limited capacity...
It's also noteworthy that there is a great argument to be
made that apes, all apes, descent from a waterside
(littoral) ancestor, so we might predict vestiges.
All & all, you are a monumentally stupid person out to "Win"
an argument and not share ideas or information.
Thanks for understanding... speaking rhetorically.
-- --Where do you sleep jermy? :~}
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/686063009321336832
On Monday 27 June 2022 at 23:39:32 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:Fake news.
Their 'bipedalism' in the trees is minimal.. .When they go down to the ground, they. .
have to be able to scoot back up the trees
when the need arises. That means
(a) retaining grasping big-toes (avoiding
the rigid hominin foot) and
(b) retaining flexible ankles -- to enable
fast vertical climbing.
Both of these rule out obligate bipedalism
(the only bipedalism worth discussion).
Hylobatids disprove your claim.
How so? They avoid the ground, usually. .
getting there only by accident, and then
they get back into the trees as fast as
they can.
They are arboreal bipedal apes.
Deer and dogs are quadrupeds, gibbons are bipeds.Your error is thinking that upright bipedalism began on the ground.PLEASE distinguish between (a) the obligate
bipedalism on the ground as seen in humans
and presumed in all hominin ancestors, and
(b) the occasional bipedalism seen in almost
every primate (and in other species such as
deer and dogs).
It's only obligate bipedalism that is worthFake news, Donald.
talking about.
with that near meaningless line above -- inGibbons are not quadrupeds.
much the same way as the wet ape
theorists do when they talk about wading.
The "first bipedal steps" require no
explanation.
is the adoption of a morphology that rulesWatch them walk.
out any other form of locomotion, and makes
tree-climbing (while carrying babies and other
young) impossible.
Look ma, no hands!Humans are derived from arboreal bipedalists with slow brachiation.Pure crap . . . akin to 'wading'. Slow
brachiation yielded such great benefits
that . . . ?
While here, you could seek to set out whyIrrelevant, they don't sleep there. They live and sleep in trees.
and how all apes -- unlike almost every
other known vertebrate -- fear water, and
will drown in it without special training
and habituation.
Fake news, Donald.Imagined and almost certainly nonsense.. .They also have long lower backs and long Achilles tendons. .
like humans and unlike great apes.
So what? They are also tiny, quite unlike
great apes and humans. In no way could
they cope with terrestrial predators.
The common ancestors of Homo & hylobatid were larger, probably
slightly smaller than bonobos.
It's not parsimonious to invent otherIt's also so obvious its a waste of time to say it.
unknown taxa (in unknown niches) when
those in front of you suffice. Hylobatids
were probably the ancestors of all other
apes.
That's parsimony.
Not in Homo.While hylobatids have the longest canines per body sizeCanines are most often for display as
deterrence.
sight each other, it's likely to be atWhich are useless during sleep, unlike domeshields.
distance (easily covered quickly at their
speed) often in a poorly lit canopy with a
lot of vegetation. So the defensive
weaponry needs to be more obvious than
in most other species. Their often
conspicuous colour patterning and very
loud 'singing' likely have similar functions.
humans have the shortest canines.Humans on the ground usually have good
and much more obvious weaponry.
On Monday 27 June 2022 at 23:43:39 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:Which allow upright arboreal bipedalism.
Since their 'bipedalism is so rare, it. .Almost all species of primate live in forests.And they're not bipedal.
False. Hylobatids are obligate bipedal arboreal apes.
is irrelevant.
Only the Homo line has evolved an
anatomy adapted to bipedalism.
False.Gibbons have grasping toes,
have knees that can lock.Because they have tendons which can lock, much safer during sleep at height. Humans sleep aground, no need for locking tendons, so knees can lock.
a tail, lower-spine, hip and leg anatomiesSame with humans, both had ancestral slow brachiation.
are all for the purpose of brachiation.
Infants are 'cradled' by the female's legsJust trying to make it easy for you.
during brachiation.
Homo has improved the energy efficiency of bipedalism.Quote 'energy-efficiency' when used
to account for the evolution of ANY
other species.
than wasps? Are rabbits more efficient
than hares?
It's a shallow, shabby myth peddled by
professional PAs only because they have
nothing better.
This is from JTEM -- and as screwed upWe're looking for ancestors who
have evolved significantly different anatomy. Chimps had
to evolve AWAY from the LCA considerably in order to
adapt to the forest.
as anything that ever emerged from the
mouth of Donald Trump.
. .They are arboreal bipedal apes.. .
Their 'bipedalism' in the trees is minimal.
Fake news.
[..]It's only obligate bipedalism that is worth. .
talking about.
Fake news, Donald.
While here, you could seek to set out whyIrrelevant, they don't sleep there. They live and sleep in trees.
and how all apes -- unlike almost every
other known vertebrate -- fear water, and
will drown in it without special training
and habituation.
While hylobatids have the longest canines per body sizeCanines are most often for display as
deterrence.
Not in Homo.
When hostile gibbons first. .
sight each other, it's likely to be at
distance (easily covered quickly at their
speed) often in a poorly lit canopy with a
lot of vegetation. So the defensive
weaponry needs to be more obvious than
in most other species. Their often
conspicuous colour patterning and very
loud 'singing' likely have similar functions.
humans have the shortest canines.Humans on the ground usually have good
and much more obvious weaponry.
Which are useless during sleep, unlike domeshields.
. .
On Wednesday 29 June 2022 at 02:11:27 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
. .They are arboreal bipedal apes.. .
Their 'bipedalism' in the trees is minimal.
Fake news.
This is the level of your 'response'.
I'm only bothering to reply because
I have an additional point below
about which I want to make a note.
[..]It's only obligate bipedalism that is worth. .
talking about.
Fake news, Donald.
While here, you could seek to set out why
and how all apes -- unlike almost every
other known vertebrate -- fear water, and
will drown in it without special training
and habituation.
Irrelevant, they don't sleep there. They live and sleep in trees.Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
While hylobatids have the longest canines per body sizeCanines are most often for display as
deterrence.
Not in Homo.Homo uses weapons.
to continue to maintain expensively
large canines.
When hostile gibbons first. .
sight each other, it's likely to be at
distance (easily covered quickly at their
speed) often in a poorly lit canopy with a
lot of vegetation. So the defensive
weaponry needs to be more obvious than
in most other species. Their often
conspicuous colour patterning and very
loud 'singing' likely have similar functions.
humans have the shortest canines.Humans on the ground usually have good
and much more obvious weaponry.
Which are useless during sleep, unlike domeshields.
. .
All visual forms of deterrence are
little use in the dark.
(Like everyone else, I don't bother
about your nutty 'domeshield' idea.)
The other relevant factor in gibbons
having extra large canines is that they
really do want to avoid physical
confrontation. They are high up in
the canopy and a fight is likely to
result in one or both parties falling
to the ground. That's not healthy.
Their small size is also probably
selected by this aspect of their
habitat. Heavy gibbons will fall
harder than light ones. That gibbons
do fall is shown by the high incidence
of healed fractures seen in the
population.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/799/2/ape-fracture-patterns-show-higher-incidence-in-more-arboreal-species
Miocene hominoids were probably vertical aquarboreals:
wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp (coastal? mangrove??) forests.
Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,. .
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Monkeys retain quadrupedalism with equal-length limbs, swimming is quadrupedal dog paddle.
Slow brachiation in apes selected for long arms but not long legs, so no dog paddle.
When Homo switched to forest floor living, legs lengthened making dog paddle possible.
All visual forms of deterrence are. .
little use in the dark.
Canines are white.
Miocene hominoids were probably vertical aquarboreals:
wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead in swamp (coastal? mangrove??) forests.
Evidence for bipedalism goes back as far as 9 million years, according
to some sources.
Recent claims state that the LCA to monkeys and apes lived maybe
25 million years ago. If you buy into that, it took 16 million years
to not only walk upright but to depend on it enough so that selective pressures began to adapt the body to bipedal locomotion.
Meh. I don't buy into it. I'm far more confident with the 9 million year
date than any LCA living 25 million years ago...
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 3:35:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Crowley wrote:Crocs.
On Wednesday 29 June 2022 at 02:11:27 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
. .They are arboreal bipedal apes.. .
Their 'bipedalism' in the trees is minimal.
Fake news.
This is the level of your 'response'.You lied. I responded accordingly.
I'm only bothering to reply becauseThey fear crocodiles.
I have an additional point below
about which I want to make a note.
[..]It's only obligate bipedalism that is worth. .
talking about.
Fake news, Donald.
While here, you could seek to set out why
and how all apes -- unlike almost every
other known vertebrate -- fear water, and
will drown in it without special training
and habituation.
Monkeys retain quadrupedalism with equal-length limbs, swimming is quadrupedal dog paddle.Irrelevant, they don't sleep there. They live and sleep in trees.Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Slow brachiation in apes selected for long arms but not long legs, so no dog paddle.
When Homo switched to forest floor living, legs lengthened making dog paddle possible.
While hylobatids have the longest canines per body sizeCanines are most often for display as
deterrence.
Not during sleep. Cf dusky titi.Not in Homo.Homo uses weapons.
It did not need
to continue to maintain expensively
large canines.
When hostile gibbons first. .
sight each other, it's likely to be at
distance (easily covered quickly at their
speed) often in a poorly lit canopy with a
lot of vegetation. So the defensive
weaponry needs to be more obvious than
in most other species. Their often
conspicuous colour patterning and very
loud 'singing' likely have similar functions.
humans have the shortest canines.Humans on the ground usually have good
and much more obvious weaponry.
Which are useless during sleep, unlike domeshields.
. .
All visual forms of deterrence areCanines are white.
little use in the dark.
(Like everyone else, I don't botherEveryone = you hiding in your shelter. Jermy infected you.
about your nutty 'domeshield' idea.)
The other relevant factor in gibbons
having extra large canines is that they
really do want to avoid physical
confrontation. They are high up in
the canopy and a fight is likely to
result in one or both parties falling
to the ground. That's not healthy.
Their small size is also probablyI already posted this:
selected by this aspect of their
habitat. Heavy gibbons will fall
harder than light ones. That gibbons
do fall is shown by the high incidence
of healed fractures seen in the
population.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/799/2/ape-fracture-patterns-show-higher-incidence-in-more-arboreal-species
On Thursday 30 June 2022 at 02:16:29 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:Crocs.
Apes can swim well enough whenAlmost all monkeys sleep in trees,. .
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Monkeys retain quadrupedalism with equal-length limbs, swimming is quadrupedal dog paddle.
Slow brachiation in apes selected for long arms but not long legs, so no dog paddle.
When Homo switched to forest floor living, legs lengthened making dog paddle possible.
habituated and 'trained'. There's
only one thing that stops them from
crossing rivers, and the like, in the
same manner as nearly all terrestrial
species -- and that's an inherited
fear of bodies of water.
it another way, a truly remarkableSlow brachiation.
absence of a near-universal instinct
or an absence of a near-universal
capacity to swim from birth.
All visual forms of deterrence are. .
little use in the dark.
Canines are white.
You're
establish your own territory.
male has made it clear that you're not
welcome.
Are you going to approach what you
think is his resting place in the dark,
(or near-dark) bearing in mind that
he knows those branches intimately
and that it's dozens of metres high
in the canopy?
Evidence for bipedalism goes back as far as 9 million years, according
to some sources.
Trachilos footprints c 6 Ma.
Comparative evidence 20 Ma: the earliest Hominoidea were vertical aquarboreals:
climbing arms overhead + wading bipedally.
Snipped blabla.
Again: AFAWK,
the Homo-Pan LCA c 5.4 Ma left the Red Sea (Zanclean Flood),
This LCA was bipedal (not running after kudus, but wading frequently in swamp?mangrove forests), aquarboreal, flat-footed, not very long-armed, not very long-legged, had thick enamel, incisiform canines etc.
littor...@gmail.com wrote:
Again: AFAWK,
the Homo-Pan LCA c 5.4 Ma left the Red Sea (Zanclean Flood),
I think it far more recent than that. Less than 4 million years ago.
They were likely distinct POPULATIONS well before that, or just
"Possibly" different populations and not necessarily likely, but
speciation was on the order of 3.7 million years ago. At the most.
Habilis doesn't even look that distance from today's chimps,
imagine erasing millions of years of chimp evolution, going back
and comparing the chimp ancestor that lived 1.5 million years
before the very oldest chimp fossil, and seeing how much more
it looked like habilis?
I think we probably already found it: Sediba.
Assuming it's even a thing, considering that the team who found
it has earned a reputation for inaccuracies, to say the least...
This LCA was bipedal (not running after kudus, but wading frequently in swamp?mangrove forests), aquarboreal, flat-footed, not very long-armed, not very long-legged, had thick enamel, incisiform canines etc.
Yes. And it's hand looked like ours, not a chimp's.
. .Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Crocs.
Or, to put. .
it another way, a truly remarkable
absence of a near-universal instinct
or an absence of a near-universal
capacity to swim from birth.
Slow brachiation.
. .All visual forms of deterrence are. .
little use in the dark.
Canines are white.
You're
Pretending again?
a young male gibbon, seeking to. .
establish your own territory.
Not possible without a mate.
The local
male has made it clear that you're not
welcome.
So has the local female. She has large canines.
On Friday 1 July 2022 at 02:19:09 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
. .Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Crocs.
Almost all vertebrates can swim from
birth, and do so on occasion -- in spite
of the danger of crocodiles.
Why are apes such an exception?
Or, to put. .
it another way, a truly remarkable
absence of a near-universal instinct
or an absence of a near-universal
capacity to swim from birth.
Slow brachiation.
Not an answer. Apes can swim after
training and when habituated.
. .All visual forms of deterrence are. .
little use in the dark.
Canines are white.
You're
Pretending again?
Asking you to use your powers of
imagination.
any.
You have no idea whether or nota young male gibbon, seeking to. .
establish your own territory.
Not possible without a mate.
young male gibbons acquire a mate
before or after acquiring a territory.
Nor does anyone else.
The local
male has made it clear that you're not
welcome.
So has the local female. She has large canines.The local female usually has vulnerable
offspring. She may prefer to take care
of them-- and give up on a mate that
she knows is weak and failing.
. .Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Crocs.
Almost all vertebrates can swim from
birth, and do so on occasion -- in spite
of the danger of crocodiles.
By dog paddling, they walk normally but put their mouths above water to breathe.
Why are apes such an exception?
Can walk/wade upright as on branches, but lost typical pronograde locomotion.
. .. .a young male gibbon, seeking to. .
establish your own territory.
Not possible without a mate.
You have no idea whether or not
young male gibbons acquire a mate
before or after acquiring a territory.
A single has none but has mobility, and needs no good nesting tree.
Nor does anyone else.
The local female usually has vulnerable
offspring. She may prefer to take care
of them-- and give up on a mate that
she knows is weak and failing.
They are a team defending their space. Why is the male ailing? What is your point?
On Sunday 3 July 2022 at 20:12:04 UTC+1, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:False.
. .Almost all monkeys sleep in trees,
and yet they can swim from birth --
in the same way as almost all other
vertebrates. Why are apes so
exceptional?
Crocs.
Almost all vertebrates can swim from
birth, and do so on occasion -- in spite
of the danger of crocodiles.
By dog paddling, they walk normally but put their mouths above water to breathe.The different body shape _might_ call for
a different swimming technique, but there
is no obvious reason that why the taxon
would lose an inherited capacity (to
swim from birth) during the process of
morphological adaptation.
Why are apes such an exception?
Can walk/wade upright as on branches, but lost typical pronograde locomotion.Not an answer.
That is life.. .a young male gibbon, seeking to. .
establish your own territory.
Not possible without a mate.
You have no idea whether or not
young male gibbons acquire a mate
before or after acquiring a territory.
A single has none but has mobility, and needs no good nesting tree.
Nor does anyone else.. .
The local female usually has vulnerable
offspring. She may prefer to take care
of them-- and give up on a mate that
she knows is weak and failing.
They are a team defending their space. Why is the male ailing? What is your point?The resident pair will age, suffer accidents,
get injured in fights, acquire diseases.
They'll get replaced by another pair about
every 15 to 20 years.
males will check them out regularly.
When they spot an ailing male, they'll
hang around, like vultures, waiting for
their chance.
themselves for their position in the queue.
I doubt if females would be attracted to
a male which didn't occupy a territory.
There would be no point in forming a
pair or getting pregnant with property-
less male. Any offspring would have little
chance of reaching maturity.
That's how it usually works among
monogamous bird species. Probably
similar in gibbons.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 78:08:23 |
| Calls: | 6,805 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,328 |
| Messages: | 5,400,433 |