The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE  (Read 29558 times)

Offline GordonP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #75 on: 01/07/2006 08:57:04 »
I have over simplfied the theory in order to save typing.

Of course a group will never defend it's territory with 100% success but it is not neccessary for the group to be totally isolated. Indeed I have said that the gene pool may have been affected by capured females. This will not matter in the long run.

Point two. The mutated gene does not have to offer an advantage in every situation. But only in a fight to be dominant male. In such a situation the ability to stand upright longer than your opponant offers a massive advantage when you have a weapon like a baseball bat in your hand. Even if the other male picks up such a weapon his inability to stand upright for more than a few steps makes the weapon almost usless. The male with the mutated gene will win every time.

x and y. After many generations x is walking almost upright most of the time. They still eat almost anything edible. x eats y.

Despite the comlexities of reproduction it is neccessary only for the ape with the mutant gene to father a significant number of the next generation. As one of the next generation with the gene will become dominant male (as I have explained above) the gene will quickly dominate the gene pool. We are talking about a group with a population of perhaps 15 to 20, or less.

Regarding the Darwin quote, it doesn't really matter where I read it.

G W Pipes
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #76 on: 01/07/2006 10:49:49 »
quote:
Originally posted by GordonP
I have over simplfied the theory in order to save typing.

Of course a group will never defend it's territory with 100% success but it is not neccessary for the group to be totally isolated. Indeed I have said that the gene pool may have been affected by capured females. This will not matter in the long run.

Point two. The mutated gene does not have to offer an advantage in every situation. But only in a fight to be dominant male. In such a situation the ability to stand upright longer than your opponant offers a massive advantage when you have a weapon like a baseball bat in your hand. Even if the other male picks up such a weapon his inability to stand upright for more than a few steps makes the weapon almost usless. The male with the mutated gene will win every time.

x and y. After many generations x is walking almost upright most of the time. They still eat almost anything edible. x eats y.

Despite the comlexities of reproduction it is neccessary only for the ape with the mutant gene to father a significant number of the next generation. As one of the next generation with the gene will become dominant male (as I have explained above) the gene will quickly dominate the gene pool. We are talking about a group with a population of perhaps 15 to 20, or less.




The point is none of that addresses the issue of how both x and y survive, for the descendents of both branches are with us today.

Everything you have said so far has said that x will survive, and y will not – but that is not the situation we observe today.  In today's world, we have both the descendents of the homo branch of apes (designated as your x), and the other ape families (designated as your y).  In the real world, x did not universally triumph over y, nor y over x, but each has survived despite the other.  You have failed anywhere to explain how this mutual survival took place.

quote:

Regarding the Darwin quote, it doesn't really matter where I read it.



I agree, it matters not at all – it was just my going off at a tangent.



George
« Last Edit: 01/07/2006 10:50:25 by another_someone »
 

Offline GordonP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #77 on: 01/07/2006 12:43:19 »
Perhaps I've not made myself clear. I never intended to infer that all the apes disappeared, obviously the rest of the apes are still with us.

All am am trying to say is the within the group the apes with the mutation outbread those that did not posses it. And either infiltrated other similar groups with the same result or killed them.

G W Pipes
 

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #78 on: 01/07/2006 21:17:10 »
I discovered why humans adopted bipedal stance.
I think it would be best to post it as new topic.
Please visit my new topic; “DISCOVERY-WHY HUMANS ADOPTED BIPEDAL STANCE”.

I will be glad to hear any comment and/or question

Luka Tunjic

 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #79 on: 03/07/2006 01:57:39 »
quote:
Originally posted by GordonP

Perhaps I've not made myself clear. I never intended to infer that all the apes disappeared, obviously the rest of the apes are still with us.

All am am trying to say is the within the group the apes with the mutation outbread those that did not posses it. And either infiltrated other similar groups with the same result or killed them.



Fine, but this must have somehow been physically isolated from all the other arboreal apes, otherwise what would have prevented your supposed mutation either spreading throughout all of the arboreal apes that lived at the time, or simply being swamped by all the existing gene pool.  There had to be a physical barrier that ensured that in some places one group of apes must have been protected from the other group of apes (at least for long enough so that the two groups could diverge to the point where they could no longer interbreed).



George
« Last Edit: 03/07/2006 01:58:46 by another_someone »
 

Offline GordonP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #80 on: 03/07/2006 07:33:23 »
Supposing our ancestors were already a seperate species of ape distinct from the ancestors of the other apes. (Chimps and Gorilla's don't interbreed, at some time their linage must have split without isolation)



G W Pipes
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #81 on: 03/07/2006 23:17:28 »
quote:
Originally posted by GordonP
Supposing our ancestors were already a seperate species of ape distinct from the ancestors of the other apes.



I certainly know of no proof that full time bipedalism and speciation happened at the same time, and it seems quite possible that speciation happened first, and then full time bipedalism happened subsequently as a consequence of genetic drift.

quote:

 (Chimps and Gorilla's don't interbreed, at some time their linage must have split without isolation)



What makes you think that?

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/bigape.html
quote:

The Bwindi-Impenetrable Great Ape Project (BIGAPE) was begun in 1996 in Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park in southwestern Uganda. The research project's central goal is a better understanding of the ecological relationship between the park's populations of mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). The world population of mountain gorillas is currently estimated at 600, half of which live in the 331 square kilometers of Bwindi. The Bwindi chimpanzee population size is unknown but roughly estimated at 350-400. The nearby Virunga Volcanoes Conservation Area has a population of 300 mountain gorillas but no chimpanzees, making Bwindi the only forest in Africa in which these two apes occur together.



In other words, even today, with this one exception, Chimpanzees and Gorillas do not inhabit the same forests.



George
« Last Edit: 03/07/2006 23:18:29 by another_someone »
 

Offline GordonP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #82 on: 04/07/2006 11:52:18 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

quote:
Originally posted by GordonP
Supposing our ancestors were already a seperate species of ape distinct from the ancestors of the other apes.



I certainly know of no proof that full time bipedalism and speciation happened at the same time, and it seems quite possible that speciation happened first, and then full time bipedalism happened subsequently as a consequence of genetic drift.

Which is what I proposed originally. A particular species of ape begin to live on the fringes of the forest
quote:


 (Chimps and Gorilla's don't interbreed, at some time their linage must have split without isolation)



What makes you think that?

Think what, that they don't interbreed or that their linage must have split without isolation?[/size=2

rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/bigape.html
Quote
The Bwindi-Impenetrable Great Ape Project (BIGAPE) was begun in 1996 in Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park in southwestern Uganda. The research project's central goal is a better understanding of the ecological relationship between the park's populations of mountain gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii). The world population of mountain gorillas is currently estimated at 600, half of which live in the 331 square kilometers of Bwindi. The Bwindi chimpanzee population size is unknown but roughly estimated at 350-400. The nearby Virunga Volcanoes Conservation Area has a population of 300 mountain gorillas but no chimpanzees, making Bwindi the only forest in Africa in which these two apes occur together.



In other words, even today, with this one exception, Chimpanzees and Gorillas do not inhabit the same forests.

How is this incompatable with my theory? Speciation can happen to different groups living in different ares of the same jungle.
 


G W Pipes
 

Offline GordonP

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #83 on: 09/07/2006 13:36:11 »
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period Of Human Origins.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull_2.html [nofollow]

It seems that scientists are having to consider the possiblity that bipedalism may have evolved while our ancestors still lived in a wooded enviroment. The discovery of the skull which has been classed as hominid and named Sahelanthropus tchadensis took place in an area 1500 miles west of the Rift Valley in Africa. The skull is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old. At that time the environment in this area is thought to have been forests and wooded savanna.


G W Pipes
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #84 on: 13/07/2006 23:01:51 »
hey anothersomeone, they just found evidence that kangaroos used to eat meat.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #85 on: 14/07/2006 00:50:47 »
quote:
Originally posted by thebrain13
hey anothersomeone, they just found evidence that kangaroos used to eat meat.



Firstly, this is not new information.  The following dates back to 2000, although I suspect the information existed even earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/911408.stm
quote:

A flesh-eating kangaroo and a crocodile that jumped down on its prey from the trees are drawing the crowds in Sydney, Australia.
The extinct animals are just two examples of the extraordinary giant creatures that once roamed the continent.
Their remains have only recently been unearthed and are throwing new light on the so-called megafauna that lived in the region many thousands and even millions of years ago and more.



One also has to remember that the term Kangaroo covers a wide range of species, even today, including tree climbing varieties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree-kangaroo
quote:

Tree-kangaroos are macropods adapted for life on trees. They are found in the rainforests of New Guinea, far north-eastern Queensland, and nearby islands, usually in mountainous areas.
It is understood that tree kangaroos evolved from creatures similar to modern kangaroos and wallabies, as they retain many standard macropod adaptations to life in the plains—notably the massive hind legs and long, narrow feet which allow orthodox macropods to travel fast and economically on the ground. Tree kangaroos have developed exceptionally long tails for balance, and stronger forelimbs for climbing. The feet are shorter and wider, they have longer claws on all feet, and rubbery soles for better grip.
The ancestors of all kangaroos are believed to have been small arboreal marsupials that looked like some of Australia's present-day possums. The earliest macropods diverged from this line when they descended to the ground and evolved bodies adapted for rapid motion over the earth and rocks. Why ancestors of the tree kangaroos at some point returned to the trees is not known.
Tree kangaroos are slow and clumsy on the ground: they move at about walking pace and hop awkwardly, leaning their body far forward to balance the heavy tail. But in trees they are bold and agile. They climb by wrapping the forelimbs around the trunk of a tree and hopping with the powerful hind legs, allowing the forelimbs to slide. They are expert leapers: 9-metre downward jumps from one tree to another have been recorded, and they have an extraordinary ability to jump to the ground from height without ill effect: 18 metres or more.



One also has to be careful about separating the notion of meat eating from hunting.  I am not saying that these meat eating kangaroos were not hunters, only that I have not yet found information as to whether the meat they ate they actually killed, or whether they were scavengers, like modern day vultures.



George
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #86 on: 14/07/2006 01:09:56 »
quote:
Originally posted by GordonP

Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period Of Human Origins.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull_2.html

It seems that scientists are having to consider the possiblity that bipedalism may have evolved while our ancestors still lived in a wooded enviroment. The discovery of the skull which has been classed as hominid and named Sahelanthropus tchadensis took place in an area 1500 miles west of the Rift Valley in Africa. The skull is estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old. At that time the environment in this area is thought to have been forests and wooded savanna.



But you also should read further down that article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull_2.html
quote:

Exactly where Sahelanthropus belongs on the family tree is not possible to determine at this time.
Despite the detailed analysis and published claims, the question of identity remains open-ended. Is it actually a new hominid, or a variation of some other previously identified species, or perhaps even an ape?
Some observers have suggested, for example, that because of its small canine teeth, Sahelanthropus may be a female chimp. Brunet was in the field in Chad and unavailable for comment. In an interview with a newspaper reporter in Chad, however, he said: "This brow ridge is thicker than that of a male gorilla so the probability that it's a female is very low."
"It is a hominid," he declared.
Stringer said such questions in the world of paleontology are always complex because evidence is usually incomplete and there is little agreement about what key features characterize a distinct human ancestor. "Everyone has a favorite model of or take on what would identify early members of the human line—it's a matter of interpretation," he said.
"This creature could be our missing ancestor, it could be on the human line of evolution. But I don't think we can really say yet that it's a human relative, or even whether it's male or female," he said. "We simply don't have the signposts to know what the ancestors of gorillas and chimps and humans looked like."



It should also be borne in mind that although the preferred reasoning for bipedalism is in order to better adapt to the savannah, there is still a minority view that it was for adaptation to a semi-aquatic lifestyle.  That these fossils were found in an area of much water, although this does not ofcourse say anything very much about what the relationship between the ancient animal and the water was.

It should also be borne in mind that:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0710_020710_chadskull_2.html
quote:

Brunet believes Sahelanthropus was bipedal at least part of the time.



My emphasis.

The point is that even if this species was part time bipedal, that would may make it any more bipedal than many modern apes.  The issue about humans is that they are full time bipedal.

In other words, while this is an interesting find for what it might tell us, it has not yet told us that much.  We do not know the relationship that this species had with modern humans, and we do not know exactly what its regular mode of locomotion was.

What it does show (although there is much other evidence also supporting this) is the very wide diversity of various hominid/ape species that existed in the past, and that one by one have become extinct, until all we have left are a small handful of the diversity that previously existed.  That the very success of the modern apes (in particular, of modern homo sapiens) has been at the expense of the diversity of our ancestry.



George
 

Offline TeapotTheist

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zorchmusic.com/hscarr
Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #87 on: 10/08/2006 08:59:13 »
My pet "theory": The survival advantage of the two-handed stab with a pointed stick must have been immense!

I think we would need relatively good brains and hands first...


Faith is not a virtue
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BODY POSTURE
« Reply #87 on: 10/08/2006 08:59:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length