All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1 species (Hs).
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
Op zaterdag 8 april 2023 om 16:08:57 UTC+2 schreef littor...@gmail.com:
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1 species (Hs).
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
Carleton Coon said chimp fetuses (until shortly before birth!) have more humanlike feet:
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1 species (Hs).
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
Carleton Coon said chimp fetuses (until shortly before birth!) have more humanlike feet:
Do they?
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
Op zaterdag 8 april 2023 om 18:52:18 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1 species (Hs).
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
Carleton Coon said chimp fetuses (until shortly before birth!) have more humanlike feet:
Do they?
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
Thanks, yes, ask Coon:
perhaps not until "shortly" before birth: see the 2nd photo right:
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1 species (Hs).
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
Carleton Coon said chimp fetuses (until shortly before birth!) have more humanlike feet:
Do they?
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
Thanks, yes, ask Coon:
He's been dead for over 40 years:
He's been dead for over 40 years:
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1 species (Hs). >> >> >> All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
Carleton Coon said chimp fetuses (until shortly before birth!) have more humanlike feet:
kudu runner:
Do they?
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
Thanks, yes, ask Coon:
He's been dead for over 40 years:
:-D
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1.
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
It doesn't matter, because he was obviously wrong about the feet of chimpanzee fetuses
Pandora wrote:
It doesn't matter, because he was obviously wrong about the feet of
chimpanzee fetuses
I know you're an idiot but, which of the images is that of a Chimp fetus?
I counted less than one. Zero. Nil. None. Nada.
Did you miss this one, earlier in the thread? https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
Did you miss this one, earlier in the thread? https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
THAT would be covered under the "Stages" issue I raised.
But it's also quite stupid, as I pointed out, because the good Doctor is right in that shorter toes are NOT an adaptation to bipedalism.
Did you miss this one, earlier in the thread? https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
Thanks for the confirmation, see short toes, much shorter than in most primates & adult chimps.
THAT would be covered under the "Stages" issue I raised.
But it's also quite stupid, as I pointed out, because the good Doctor is right in that shorter toes are NOT an adaptation to bipedalism.
Can't they really understand?? it's so simple! are they *really* that stupid?? Incredible!
Humans have short toes, run half as fast as +-all other primates, have to run on only 2 limbs, which are placed more sidewards etc.etc.,
yet some of these idiots believe their ancestors ran after antelopes over savannas!?! :-DDD
There's 0 evidence for such fantasy! Zero!
And the solution (at least in great lines) is so easy (even for me...) when we use a little bit of comparative evidence:
1) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea were already BP for wading in swamp & coastal forests where they often fossilized + for climbing arms overhead in the branches above the swamp (+ for picking fruits or mangrove oysters or whatever), e.g. Trachilos footprints!,
2) early-Pleistocene H.erectus were undeniable (POS) slow+shallow divers for shellfish (shell engravings etc.etc.),
3) late-Pleistocene we became more wading (again) + today walking, rarely running,
yet those idiots believe they descend from kudu runners!? :-DDD
Stupid stupid stupid - there's no other word for it.
Pandora wrote:
Did you miss this one, earlier in the thread?
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AGW5I6QEZN6ORI8F
THAT would be covered under the "Stages" issue I raised.
But it's also quite stupid, as I pointed out, because the good Doctor is >right in that shorter toes are NOT an adaptation to bipedalism.
But it's also quite stupid, as I pointed out, because the good Doctor is >right in that shorter toes are NOT an adaptation to bipedalism.
How about longer toes?
Wading is just walking in water, snorkel noser.
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/212/5/713/18978/Walking-running-and-the-evolution-of-short-toes-in
01 MARCH 2009
Walking, running and the evolution of short toes in humans
The phalangeal portion of the forefoot is extremely short
relative to body mass in humans. This derived pedal
proportion is thought to have evolved in the context of
committed bipedalism, but the benefits of shorter toes for
walking and/or running have not been tested previously.
Here, we propose a biomechanical model of toe function in
bipedal locomotion that suggests that shorter pedal
phalanges improve locomotor performance by decreasing
digital flexor force production and mechanical work, which
might ultimately reduce the metabolic cost of flexor force
production during bipedal locomotion. We tested this model
using kinematic, force and plantar pressure data collected
from a human sample representing normal variation in toe
length (N=25). The effect of toe length on peak digital
flexor forces, impulses and work outputs was evaluated
during barefoot walking and running using partial
correlations and multiple regression analysis, controlling
for the effects of body mass,whole-foot and phalangeal
contact times and toe-out angle. Our results suggest that
there is no significant increase in digital flexor output
associated with longer toes in walking. In running,
however, multiple regression analyses based on the sample
suggest that increasing average relative toe length by as
little as 20% doubles peak digital flexor impulses and
mechanical work,probably also increasing the metabolic
cost of generating these forces. The increased mechanical
cost associated with long toes in running suggests that
modern human forefoot proportions might have been selected
for in the context of the evolution of endurance running.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/498642/
1979 Jul-Aug
The function of the toes in walking, jogging and running
The foot has been studied in walking, running and jogging
using high speed cinema photography in the laboratory for
gait analysis in the Shriner's Hospital for Crippled
Children, San Francisco. During running, as well as in
walking, the extrinsic toe flexors restrain progression of
the tibia. The extrinsic extensors accelerate the tibia
over the fixed foot. The intrinsic toe muscles function
from mid-stance to lift-off when the subject runs on his
toes. In sprinting, the intrinsics are active throughout
the weight-bearing phase.
https://www.heartlandfootandankle.com/foot-care-after-amputated-toes/ Amputation of toes, or part of a foot, will of course
have life-long consequences. ...
Losing one or more toes does not necessarily mean that
you won’t be able to walk or even run again. However,
it will adversely affect your balance and stability,
and potentially change your walking biomechanics.
The big toe carries the heaviest load during walking
and running, and it’s also the toe that is most likely
to be amputated due to infection. It’s the toe you push
off from during your stride, and it has to carry about
40 percent of the total force load on your feet overall.
As a result, losing your big toe (as well as others)
will make your walking and running gait less efficient
in general, resulting in a slower and choppier stride —
although this can be compensated for with fillers (more
on that in a moment) and physical therapy.
Furthermore, missing toes may make it difficult to fit
comfortably into shoes and increases your risk of
subsequent ulceration and amputation due to rubbing of
feet inside the shoes. Remaining toes may even begin to
shift position in the absence of missing neighbors.
Thanks a lot.
Somebody sent us the abstracts of 3 papers that perfectly confirm our view: https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
:-)
Cursorial mammals have very long & strong middle toe-rays (3th, or 3+4th), esp. very long (end)phalanges.
Humans OTOH evolved from arboreal primates (long + mobile toes & fingers for grasping branches) to
1) Mio-Pliocene vertical, wading-climbing Hominoidea (shorter toes, loss of grasping feet), google "aquarboreal",
2) early-Pleist. shallow-diving archaic Homo (long metatarsals, very long 1st+5th toe-rays), google "Joordens Munro",
3) today's bipedally walking H.sapiens (strong & long 1st toe),
in spite of our plantigrady, we sometimes even run! :-DDD
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/212/5/713/18978/Walking-running-and-the-evolution-of-short-toes-in
01 MARCH 2009
Walking, running and the evolution of short toes in humans
The phalangeal portion of the forefoot is extremely short
relative to body mass in humans. This derived pedal
proportion is thought to have evolved in the context of
committed bipedalism, but the benefits of shorter toes for
walking and/or running have not been tested previously.
Here, we propose a biomechanical model of toe function in
bipedal locomotion that suggests that shorter pedal
phalanges improve locomotor performance by decreasing
digital flexor force production and mechanical work, which
might ultimately reduce the metabolic cost of flexor force
production during bipedal locomotion. We tested this model
using kinematic, force and plantar pressure data collected
from a human sample representing normal variation in toe
length (N=25). The effect of toe length on peak digital
flexor forces, impulses and work outputs was evaluated
during barefoot walking and running using partial
correlations and multiple regression analysis, controlling
for the effects of body mass,whole-foot and phalangeal
contact times and toe-out angle. Our results suggest that
there is no significant increase in digital flexor output
associated with longer toes in walking. In running,
however, multiple regression analyses based on the sample
suggest that increasing average relative toe length by as
little as 20% doubles peak digital flexor impulses and
mechanical work,probably also increasing the metabolic
cost of generating these forces. The increased mechanical
cost associated with long toes in running suggests that
modern human forefoot proportions might have been selected
for in the context of the evolution of endurance running.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/498642/
1979 Jul-Aug
The function of the toes in walking, jogging and running
The foot has been studied in walking, running and jogging
using high speed cinema photography in the laboratory for
gait analysis in the Shriner's Hospital for Crippled
Children, San Francisco. During running, as well as in
walking, the extrinsic toe flexors restrain progression of
the tibia. The extrinsic extensors accelerate the tibia
over the fixed foot. The intrinsic toe muscles function
from mid-stance to lift-off when the subject runs on his
toes. In sprinting, the intrinsics are active throughout
the weight-bearing phase.
https://www.heartlandfootandankle.com/foot-care-after-amputated-toes/
Amputation of toes, or part of a foot, will of course
have life-long consequences. ...
Losing one or more toes does not necessarily mean that
you won’t be able to walk or even run again. However,
it will adversely affect your balance and stability,
and potentially change your walking biomechanics.
The big toe carries the heaviest load during walking
and running, and it’s also the toe that is most likely
to be amputated due to infection. It’s the toe you push
off from during your stride, and it has to carry about
40 percent of the total force load on your feet overall.
As a result, losing your big toe (as well as others)
will make your walking and running gait less efficient
in general, resulting in a slower and choppier stride —
although this can be compensated for with fillers (more
on that in a moment) and physical therapy.
Furthermore, missing toes may make it difficult to fit
comfortably into shoes and increases your risk of
subsequent ulceration and amputation due to rubbing of
feet inside the shoes. Remaining toes may even begin to
shift position in the absence of missing neighbors.
IOW, only incredible imbeciles think their Plio-Pleist.ancestors ran after antelopes... :-DDD
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Wading is just walking in water, snorkel noser.
Great. Bipedalism is far older than the human foot.
Whatever is wrong with you has got to grasp this fact, and
incorporate it into your rantings.
JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Wading is just walking in water, snorkel noser.
Great. Bipedalism is far older than the human foot.
Every bird is a biped.
IOW, only complete morons think wading produced a weight bearing
foot and heel...
Primum Sapienti wrote:
IOW, only complete morons think wading produced a weight bearing
foot and heel...
All Primates have (very) long toes & fingers, except 1.
All cursorial tetrapods have (sometimes extremely) long toes,
and all arboreal tetrapods have very long, often very mobile foot"fingers" (toes).
IOW, our short toes alone already prove our wading/swimming origin,
and everything else about our anatomy confirms this https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/de-waterkanthypothese-hoe-oermensen-al-wadend-klimmend-rechtop-gingen-lopen/
I'll paste
Primum Sapienti wrote:
I'll paste
Good little 'tards eat their paste!
Again, it's about a model. Pieces fit into a model or they
don't. You have no model. You focus like a laser beam on
some largely irrelevant "Point" and then pretend that's a
model.
Bipedalism greatly exceeds Homo in age. Our bipedal
ancestors begin before any LCA. Morons get everything
BACKWARDS, they look at today and move back into
time, instead of at the past and move forward.
You've got it backwards.
And because you see it all backwards, you see bipedalism
as uniquely human. Bipedal traits are human traits. Upright
adaptations are human adaptations. But as the good Doctor
pointed out in his excellent talk, it's the other way around.
WE humans retain the bipedal locomotion of our pre Homo
ancestors...
It's true that our evolution had to be moderated for quite
some time by interbreeding with inland groups. This is why
I often point to erectus as "The first modern human," as the
chromosome fusion and it's barrier to interbreeding would
have prevented the watering down of the gene pool. But...
The good Doctor has his "Aquaboreal" populations, Algis
Kuliukas has his savanna walkers... everyone has their
inland favorites.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
I'll paste
Good little 'tards eat their paste!
Again, it's about a model. Pieces fit into a model or they
Again, it's about the evidence.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Again, it's about the evidence.The evidence says that bipedalism *Way* out-dates Homo.
Adaptations to same are NOT "Human-like."
The human hand is more primitive than that of so called
"Apes."
The evidence says that our ancestors were not in Africa
some 3 to 4 million years ago.
Of course, you are so devoid of reading comprehension
that you can't even spot an a-priori assumption, let alone
one contrary to evidence.
Here. I'll show you, though you are too stupid to see it
even when pointed out:
: The phalangeal portion of the forefoot is extremely short
: relative to body mass in humans. This derived pedal
: proportion is thought to have evolved in the context of
: committed bipedalism
This is saying that the human foot is different and it's
different because we're bipedal. But what do we know
about bipedalism? Hmm? Well, most of it's history
AMONGST OUR ANCESTORS was already over before
Homo evolved. So it can't be "CUS BIPEDAL."
And the good Doctor was arguing, what? Oh yeah. Now I
remember. He was arguing that it's not because we are
bipedal.
Gosh. No wonder you pissed yourself!
All you had to do was STOP being an idiot, STOP being
consumed with contradiction and commit yourself to
finding the answer, rather than pleasing some status
quo.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Again, it's about the evidence.
The evidence says that bipedalism *Way* out-dates Homo.
Every bird on the planet is bipedal!
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Every bird on the planet is bipedal!
If you want to continue to pretend that you're educated,
you might, at least on occasion, try to rise above your
childish idiocy of removing things out of context. To
adults, it's demonstrating your inability to address the
points.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Every bird on the planet is bipedal!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:07:35 |
| Calls: | 6,767 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,295 |
| Messages: | 5,376,419 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
