https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/30/new-evidence-that-lucy-our-most-famous-ancestor-had-super-strong-arms/
I'm sure there's a lot on this out there, it's not exactly
my forte, but shouldn't we be able to track lifestyle, and
tool use, through muscle development?
The less a species relies on tools, the more they probably
rely on brute strength.
Chimps are known for ripping monkeys and even each
other apart...
I should think that the further you get from the LCA, the
stronger. And according to the above cite, Lucy and her
ilk weren't quite as strong as Chimps, though stronger
than humans.
This might also be evidence for arboreal behavior. After
all, they've got to pull their body weight up into trees all
the time.
Conversely...
It seems that you'd need very little strength to walk
along a beach, picking up clams or whatnot. So there
would be very little selective pressure on strength.
Of course one problem with this model is Neanderthals,
who were built like a Sherman tank. But I've long
suggested that they were ambush hunters and likely
used trees.
Climb up into a tree along a game trail, or over bait,
and wait with your spear... *Bam*!
i dunno.
Thoughts?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/728480911625240576
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)