 |
|
 |
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:45:43 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 4, 12:47 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Shame on Archimedes Plutonium for not using climate as a trigger
mechanism for
human evolution.
[..]
Yep, right on target. And something that proves that when self-
proclaimed experts
make rash gereralizations like:
"Most sciences have few practitioners that are really good in Logical
thought and logical conclusions." it only shows they themselves are
the
ones incapable of logical conclusions and really have no clue at all
as
to how the scientific method works, even though their inflated egos
claim
otherwise.
[...]
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:34:18 -0600, jerry warner <...@mchsi.com
uhhh what program did you watch? The program did not say that! Take
Kinderfarm over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:57:15 -0800 (PST), "zzb...@netscape.net" <...@netscape.net
On Nov 4, 3:47 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
But, the idiot anthropolosts are always mistaking the traits of
modern man
with prehistoric things. There is no other animanl that habitally
drives
4-wheeled lamd-rovers for 8 hours a day, as idiot modern man.
so that's why the modern people with brains work not on idiot
panarama AI,
but on Laser-Injected AI, not on self-replicating machines, but
on
self-replicating non-magnetic machines, and self-assembling robots.
And not on fire, but on drones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:22:45 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 5, 10:57 pm, "zzb...@netscape.net" <...@netscape.netwrote:
zzbun, have you met Paul Crowley yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:29:27 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
Before I critique all those passages I quoted, let me give the overall
framework
of Stonethrowing or RockThrowing theory using the NOVA show as a
outline
of the timeline.
NOVA should have started the show with the data that Max Planck
Institute
that reckons the divergence of ape to humans was about 6 million years
ago.
In other words, start the show at that juncture of information.
Then to highlight not Brunet's misshaped skull but to highlight
Orrorin since
there were vastly more fossils found of the 6 million year old
Orrorin.
Then ask the question were did Orrorin come from and since he was a
biped
this is an important question. I believe the data points a finger at
some big
islands off the coast of Italy where Orrorin's ancestors come from.
Now the huge logical gap of NOVA is that although no rock or stone
sharpened
tools were found with Orrorin or Toumai to Lucy to Selam, and why
would there
for a new creature that Threw rocks and stones would take millions of
years
of throwing before they evolved into the next step of sharpening and
making
rock tools.
So the evolution of RockThrowing or Stonethrowing is that from the
ancient ancestor
of Oreopithecus some 8 million years ago in Southern Italy started to
throw rocks
and stones and would migrate down into west Africa becoming Orrorin
and eventually
migrating into east Africa becoming Australopithecus.
And all the while that Orrorin to Selam were throwing rocks and stones
their bipedalism
was created from the throwing and their bone anatomy and muscle
anatomy were
changing to increase the Throwing.
The fact that anthropologists do not find any sharpened rocks and
stones near Orrorin
or Selam is commonsense since they were throwing them. Collecting them
and
throwing them, not sharpening. And this throwing would last anywhere
from 4 to 6
million years since the first protohuman threw a rock or stone.
The idea of bipedalism as coming from "less energy" is a ridiculous
theory. Half
the body of a biped and the rest a apelike who scurries up a tree when
in danger.
Preposterous. The reason Orrorin to Selam were biped is because they
were no
longer able to climb trees efficiently anymore and were build in body
design to
remain on the ground and to throw rocks at danger.
Rockthrowing comes first, and causes the bones and muscle anatomy to
create
bipedalism and thus enhance bipedalism.
Now a proof of what I say above is easy begot if an anthropologist
finds fossils of
animals in Orrorin's dig that indicate the animal was killed by a
rock. Where Selam
was found, the anthropologist remarked of a hippopotamus bones and the
bones
of some other animals. Well, if one can find bones at Selam or Orrorin
site which
shows the bones of the animal had been killed by throwing a rock,
would instantly
prove the Stonethrowing theory. I bet that some anthropologists have
already found
such bones of killed animals. And there would be only one plausible
explanation--
killed by Orrorin or killed by Australopithecus.
As for the increase in size of the brain from Australopithecus to Homo
habilis
is easy, you need an increase in brain capacity when you have a new
industry
of tool making from rocks and stones.
And the brain increase size from Orrorin to Homo habilis was a steady
increase
since the frontal lobe of the brain is needed for forethought and
planning of hunting
in groups and to see in the "mind's eye" of how a rock is thrown at a
target. In other
words, geometry was probably borne in history when Orrorin picked up a
rock
ran with it and his comrades looking for a animal to throw at and his
mind picturing
the flight of the rock in air hitting the target.
You need an increase in brain size from a chimp to a human to have
that foresight
and planning and then the geometry of a projectile to hit a target.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:53:01 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 4, 1:29 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Until the Hobbit (chimp brain size) tool-capacity problem is debated
and resolved
in the peer-reviewed literature, you are leading the evidence.
Brain size may or may not have anything to do with your claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:54:42 -0800 (PST), Benj <...@iwaynet.net
On Nov 4, 9:53 am, Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
Peer-reviewed? More like peer-censored! This whole question and
theory of "brain-size" is total pseudo-science bullshit. It makes a
nice pat evolution theory, it's just too bad it doesn't fit the
evidence. I used to have a parrot (Amazon double yellow head) that had
no problem with tools. She even invented her own. There was no door
catch short of a combination lock she couldn't figure out and open.
She was FAR smarter than my cat. As a little test one day I closed the
door under the sink on my cat. All she had to do to open it was push.
It took her more than a half hour to figure that out. Compare that far
larger mammal brain to the tiny bird brain that could not only unlock
doors and open them, but also close them again and re-lock them. The
parrot could had a leash-clip as a toy. She could unclip it from the
cage and then after playing with it re-clip it back on! All living
proof of the bogusity of the brain-size = intelligence idiocy.
It's stuff like this (and the clear political purposes built into the
programs) that make me have nothing but the utmost contempt for PBS,
NOVA, and their supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:17:34 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 5, 10:54 pm, Benj <...@iwaynet.net
Nice lip-service reply.
When someting is in dispute amongst anthros, it is argued in the
literature.
I never claimed one way or another where the evidence would lead. So I
wasn't leading
anything.
You might want to learn some reading skills before you start attacking
posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:31:20 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
Sorry, come to think of it, the proof of Stonethrowing theory is far
easier than
what I outlined above where I said we need to find killed animal
fossils indicating
that the kill had been by Orrorin's throwing of rocks and stones.
The proof is far easier in that all we need to do is find substantial
evidence of the
use of stones and rocks in a ancient eating site of Orrorin. In other
words where
Pickford and Senut, or Brunet found their ancient humanlike fossils is
to find merely
fossil bones that had been so to speak worked on by rocks and stones.
Anyone know of what animals would have been easy targets of rock or
stone throwing
for early man? Would they have been deer size or rabbit size? And so
simply finding
ancestral human fossils of Orrorin or Australapithecus, we merely need
to find
evidence of the use of rocks and stones to prove the Stonethrowing
theory.
--- quoting Wikipedia on Orrorin ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin
The team that found these fossils in 2000 was led by Brigitte Senut
and Martin Pickford from the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. The
discoverers conclude that Orrorin is a hominin on the basis of its
bipedal locomotion and dental anatomy; based on this, they date the
split between hominins and African great apes to at least 7 million
years ago, in the Messinian. This date is markedly different from
those derived using the molecular clock approach, but has found
general acceptance among paleoanthropologists.
If Orrorin proves to be a direct human ancestor, then
australopithecines such as Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") may be
considered a side branch of the hominid family tree: Orrorin is both
earlier, by almost 3 million years, and more similar to modern humans
than is A. afarensis. The main similarity is that the Orrorin femur is
morphologically closer to that of H. sapiens than is Lucy's; there is,
however, some debate over this point.
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Orrorin ---
Perhaps the reason that NOVA decided to use Brunet rather than
Pickford and Senut
and Orrorin is because Brunet had a skull fossil and the others did
not.
But if my memory is correct when I watched that PBS on Orrorin (was it
2002?), if
my memory is correct it was mentioned that the find or dig site was
located at an
ancient cat tree. I mean some ancient predator cat that would kill
animals, including
Orrorin and haul them up the tree and eat the kill.
Now, maybe that is correct or maybe incorrect. Maybe where the fossils
of Orrorin
were found was not a cat kill tree but rather was the campground or
campsite of a
band of Orrorin troup and that they brought their meat kill there and
ate it there.
Orrorin probably did not have the invention of fire so the campground
would have
been a eating site only. So I wonder if the custodians of all the
fossil bones found
with Orrorin can be reexamined for stone and rock application. To kill
animals by
throwing rocks and stones at them, one would guess that they would
have used
the rocks and stones also to hammer on the bones and if some of those
bones
had been fossilized.
So all of a sudden the proof of Stonethrowing or Rockthrowing theory
becomes
very much easy and easier than previously thought. All of a sudden,
the most
precious fossils of early man becomes not of the humanlike creature
involved
but whether a fossilized animal bones had been worked on by rocks and
stones.
So can we review every animal bone found at the Orrorin dig site? And
at the
Brunet dig site? All we need is a animal bone worked on by rock and
stone.
Also, I would mention that if Orrorin was a rockthrowing primate
predator, that
this lifestyle would have demanded living close to or nearby a
constant source
of easy rocks to throw. That means along side river banks. So the
ideal place
to live would be to follow the edge of water where rock piles are
easily used for
defense and for hunting.
So if Australopithecus of Lucy or Selam were rockthrowing predators,
they would
likely have lived nearby to bodies of water where rocks and stones
were instantly
available for hunting or defending.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:04:37 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 5, 12:31 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
If it really were all that easy, someone anthopologist would have
already
done it and a paper would have been published is a peer-reviewed
journal.
They have already looked and come up with zero. If someone is using
stones for hunting or defense, some low percent is always exotic, IOW,
from
some distant source that is traceable. They even found this to be true
for rocks used by chimps to break nuts, they know they haul them
around for a certain distance before dropping them.
SFAIK, no one is questioning the use of early throwing by our
ancestors.
Even orangs will throw braches at someone on the ground, so even they
have got the idea of throwing for defense. Orangs have been around as
a
species presumably a lot longer than we have and throwing certainly
hasn't
helped their brain size any. Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:54:02 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
(snipped)
Well actually
--- quoting NOVA's show ---
"Then, on their 26th expedition, in 2001, they found a smashed,
misshapen skull, around 6,000,000 years old. They called it
Sahelanthropus tchadensis. There were no bones apart from the skull.
--- end quoting ---
Could the misshapen skull found by Brunet have been the first recorded
murder victim of stone and rock use by prehumans some 6 million years
ago.
Could the smashed and misshappened skull have been due to rocks and
stones used on Toumai's skull?
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:44:30 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 5, 2:54 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
http://tinyurl.com/yba7eqf
Turkana Boy's skull is crushed also,
Zinj, OH5 crushed.
1470, skull found in hundreds of pieces.
etc., etc.
Must have been lots of murders back then, as
most early skulls are found crushed.
The fact is, green or new fractures can
be distinguished from those made after
death from the likes of weight and shifting of
the earth over millions of years in the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:42:04 -0800 (PST), Benj <...@iwaynet.net
On Nov 5, 7:44 pm, Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
I guess you never noticed that humans are predators. There are a lot
of "murders" right NOW. We just no longer smash each other' head with
rocks.
And anyway, let's call them killings rather than "murders". The fact
of evolution is "natural selection" and killings are simply one way
that nature "selects". "Murder" is a moral religious viewpoint that
did not exist in these eras. The fact of evolution teaches that there
is no such thing as morality or ethics. There is only natural
selection by "nature".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:10:00 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 5, 10:42 pm, Benj <...@iwaynet.net
I guess you never noticed that OH5 is not the same species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:22:06 -0700, RichTravsky <...@hotMOVEmail.com
That's what the science of geology addresses. Fossils get buried. Overburden
can be crushing. Happens to a lot of fossils. Does that mean they were murdered
too?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:06:01 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
(snipped)
Can we use the same CT scan to see whether the thumb bone was
evolved to the point where these prehumans were rockthrowers?
Later in this program is talk of how the thumb is enlarged for
dexterity
and dexterity in rock throwing?
I guess Lieberman, with the same logic would say that birds first
started to
fly since it saved energy. Or that the giraffe evolved long necks
because of
energy savings.
This is what I mean when I say that theories in soft sciences should
be
reserved for hard scientists such as physics or mathematics to make
the
theory, since soft-scientists lack enough deductive logic.
For Lieberman, there is the obvious counterexample, since baboons use
mostly the ground, why have they not evolved bipedalism? The answer is
that
evolution does not work in the way of Lieberman's simplistic view.
Something
has to force or propel the change from quadrapedal to bipedal. The
only force
of change of prehumans is the new development of throwing rocks and
stones.
Throwing requires bipedalism, and that is the force or propelling of
the change.
This is a myoptic understanding of how evolution works. To say that
prehumans
evolved into bipeds due to "energy savings" is not evolution.
Evolution requires
a pressure to evolve, and as this NOVA portrays Selam and Lucy troupes
conveniently drop out of the trees and walking upright is a ludricous
sight.
The pressure to evolve into bipeds was an enormous pressure from the
acquired
behaviour of throwing of rocks and stones by Orrorin and probably
Oreopithecus.
We may even someday identify genes for throwing that humans have but
apes
do not. Throwing demands new fingers and hands and new vision and
demands
bipedalism in the act of throwing. The entire muscle and bone anatomy
of prehumans
and humans was a evolution to bipedalism in order to maximize
throwing.
I do not know the history of Brunet versus Pickford and Senut and
Orrorin.
Was there a squabble between these two groups of anthropologists in
that Orrorin, in my opinion, should have the spotlight and not
Brunet's
Toumai. Orrorin was marginalized in this program. Perhaps because no
skull was found, but alot more bones were found for Orrorin.
The proof for Orrorin was the groove in the femur and although no
Orrorin skull was found, the arm and leg bones are more telling
of stonethrowing than is the single skull of Toumai.
And according to Stonethrowing theory, all the bipeds were throwing
rocks and stones.
This is bad science reporting. NOVA ignores about 4 million years of
throwing
of rocks and stones and only seems to jump in when the rocks and
stones are
being shaped with a knife cutting edge. Only when the stones are
worked on,
does NOVA pay attention. But what about the 4 million years in
throwing of
rocks and stones.
As the opening scenes showed that East Africa where Selam was found
had
antelope and hippos, yet noone reporting on whether fossils of killed
animals
were found with evidence of rockthrowing.
Were the teeth for an increasing meat diet, and hand bones checked for
rock throwing evolutionary changes?
Anthropologists in the field of old were sloppy as to looking for
piles of rocks
nearby where Toumai and Orrorin were found. Ditto for Australopithecus
finds.
In those digs, rocks were never a priority or focused issue. It was
always
bones.
So can the CT of Selam look into the thumb bone as to whether it was
more advanced than a modern day chimp with respect to throwing?
And can the scan look at the elbow bone structure to see if they would
be able to throw a softball once grown up. Throw overarm?
My guess of the jump start is that "controlling of fire" occurred, so
that
a troup or band of rockthrowers could now go anywhere and not be tied
down to river stream. With Homo habilis, probably a spectrum of
new improvement such as fire, carrying around stones in skin hides
and of course sharpening stones as knives.
Here again, soft scientists are not usually remarkable in making
theories
of science and should restrict themselves to collecting the data.
It is commonly known that changes in climate of swinging one way to
another is too slow for evolutionary change, especially for the
doubling increase
in brain size in the span of a million years. What would have a double
increase in brain size is several inventions at the same time
1) overarm throwing
2) fire to sleep at nights far from rocks
3) hides to drag rocks or carry them overland
Since the world is wanting to do something about Global Warming, I see
NOVA
as pandering to the issue of Global Warming on a subject in which it
does not
belong-- the evolution of humanity. Climate change may have had a
minor
affect on human evolution.
Also, let me outline the migration route as I see it of human
evolution, for that
is probably as telling of what actually did happen as the fossils
found.
I believe our most ancient ancestors were Oreopithecus somewhere in
Sardina
Italy, about 8 to 10 million years ago. I believe one of these
Oreopithecus creatures
had a mutation which gave him a behaviour of wanting to pick up rocks
and stones
and to habitually throw them at other creatures. Whether underarm or
overarm is
unknown. This throwing proclivity garnered this creature more food and
more females
and he left behind more offspring than others. The throwing
Oreopithecus would
multiply and eventually after some million years would migrate into
West Africa and
be known as Orrorin. Orrorin would keep improving throwing and would
migrate
after millions of years into southern Africa where the rivers were the
highways
and roads of our ancient ancestors since they were shores lined with
easy rocks
to pick up and throw. I think the rivers of Africa were in the central
and southern
regions and not East Africa. Lakes do not have good rock banks.
So our ancestors were probably down in South Africa near rivers and
the
less evolved throwers of Orrorin ventured over into East Africa.
What NOVA calls flatlining for 4 million years is merely the idea that
the
ancestors of humans, the best throwers of all were in Southern Africa
and as
they increased their throwing perfection, they eventually migrated
back up
north and northeast and would extinct all the inferior throwers of
rocks and
stones. In this evolutionary trait of living by throwing of rocks and
stones,
the fate of all inferior throwers is a horrible extinction.
I would hazard to predict that sometime in the future, someone will
find
fossils of prehumans in south Africa near river banks of ancient times
of 4 or 5 million years ago and which their brain size was larger than
that of Australopithecus of East Africa.
My sense is that throwing is the number one key, and to follow
river banks where rocks are easy to find. Contrary to most people's
notion that early man was a caveman. Caves do not have alot of
rocks for throwing. It is far better to say that early man's home was
the banks of rivers. Where they had their best weapon, rocks all
around
and where they probably climbed into trees but not lived in trees.
After
Orrorin, it is safe to say that river banks was the home of early
humanity.
What made them bipeds was throwing and so, only one tribe of throwers
would
live when it was over with.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:05:52 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
Also, I forgot to mention the fact that as Lieberman believes
bipedalism is
less energy is only a relative notion. Less energy for what? For that
of being
on the ground and traveling a distance. But bipedalism also means a
tremendous huge energy in order to climb a tree. Anyone want to have
a contest of climbing and living in trees versus chimps or some other
apes?
So as prehumans became bipeds, they lost their ability to live in
trees.
Granted, they could flee to trees and make a poor climb compared to
any ape to escape lions.
So here the balance was that if you were evolving into bipeds, it had
to have some advantage and the advantage is obviously rockthrowing
that the bipedalism was enhancing the rockthrowing.
So the NOVA program showing Selam and Lucy troops conveniently
plopping
down and out of trees to walk upright is a rather silly and ridiculous
site to
behold.
A better, and more accurate depiction of Selam and Lucy was to show
them
near waters edge of a lake or river where there are alot of rocks and
stones and
the tribe of Australopithecus huddled together ready to throw rocks at
a food
source or throw rocks at some danger.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:24:15 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
I do not know if NOVA hired some caveman or cavewoman to assemble this
three part program. But they can redeem themselves by doing it over.
And the Anthropology community
for once can get it straight by a symposium that aims at a
colloboration with the
co-evolution of the arms, hands and legs for throwing.
That Bipedalism was secondary and was driven by RockThrowing.
If we assemble all the 6 million year old fossils together such as
Toumai and Orrorins
we see a co-evolution of a vast change in the arms, hands, legs.
If we assemble the fossils of all the 3 million year old fossils we
again see this
trend of vast changes in arms, hands, legs. Why these three areas?
Because
Throwing of rocks and stones was the primary force of change in
apelike anatomy
to becoming humans.
The hands, elbow, shoulder and legs of Orrorin and the skull of Toumai
are different
from the apes because the driving evolution or force of evolution was
due to
Rockthrowing.
Anthropologists until now have never assembled together a co-evolution
of
the legs with the arms to improve throwing. Until now, anthropologists
have
analyzed the legs as different from the arms, and have never reasoned
that
one was driving the other.
We have almost complete fossil skeletons of Homo habilis. Yet it is
funny and
ironic that no anthropologist has analyzed the co-evolution of the
arms, hands,
with the legs for the enhancement of throwing.
Every fossil found of humanlike features, different from fossils of
apes, were
humanlike because the arms, hands, leg anatomy was shifting or
evolving into
a Throwing anatomy.
Why cannot anthropologists of today analyze the two together of the
arms with
legs? Why cannot they realize of co-evolution? Why cannot they
understand
that throwing would force changes dramatically in the arm, hand and
leg bones?
They may give excuses that not enough fossil bones have been found.
But that is
only an excuse. All the prehuman fossil bones found to date provide a
vast and large
enough field of study to relate the arms, hands and leg bones and to
prove that
Throwing was the underlying dynamics causing the creation of the human
species
out of the ape species.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:03:57 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 6, 12:24 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Sorry, chimps stand before throwing, no reason at all to suspect
early homonids did it different.
Johanson's knee-bone find at Hadar predicted upright walkers early,
Lucy and the tracks
at Laetoli confirmed this hypothesis. That is hard evidence. Hard
evidence does not
get overturned by throwing speculators. No manuports =s no throwing
hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:29:51 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
It is a shame that anthropologists have not researched the bone
anatomy in conjunction
or in unison to the whole body. Where they study only bipedalism in
isolation of the
evolving changes over the entire body, and not just focus on the leg
bones. Where they
study the arm and fingers and skull and backbone and pelvis to see how
the increased
Throwing changes those bones of an apelike creature into a Throwing
creature.
If anyone today were to examine a typical human bone anatomy and
compare
it to the typical chimp bone anatomy, there are two areas in which we
can identify
that these are two different species. The first is that the Human bone
skeleton
was shaped by evolution to throw rocks and stones for a living and the
second of
the major differences is that the human skeleton is biped. Now, the
biped came as
a result of the throwing and the changes to make throwing better.
What NOVA and the troop of believers of NOVA fail to understand is
that you cannot
evolve bipedalism without a prior existing Throwing behaviour.
And the fossil record shows this to be true:
--- quoting ---
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Orrorin-tugenensis
If Orrorin proves to be a direct human ancestor, the
australopithecines such as Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") may be
considered a side branch of the hominid family tree: Orrorin is both
earlier, by over 1.5 million years, and more similar to us than A.
afarensis. The main similarity is that the Orrorin humerus seem closer
to H. sapiens in comparison to Lucy's, there is, however, significant
controversy over this point, and other researchers assert that
Pickford et al. gloss over a number of uncertainties. Other fossils
found in these rocks show that Orrorin lived in a wooded environment,
not the savanna assumed by many theories of human evolution and, in
particular, the origins of bipedalism.
--- end quoting ---
Also I briefly want to state that in my search tonight I ran across a
Pickford website that
discusses the pine forest climate of Orrorin and not the savannah
climate heretofor
thought to have been. I want to mention that RockThrowing as the
primary evolutionary
force of creating humanity would entail that our ancestors were nearby
to readily available
rock supplies. Where are rocks best found? The answer is immediate to
anyone who
hikes and explores alot. River banks are the best places to have a
full armory of rocks
and stones. Pine forests are usually where rivers flow and where alot
of rocky shores
are found. So our ancestors were Rockthrowers and had a tendency to
make river
banks their homes. And since animals often to go rivers to drink it
would be the ideal
location for hunting meat.
Now the above suggests that Orrorin had two similarities akin to
modern day humanity
moreso than Lucy or Selam or any other Australopithecine. Orrorin had
more upright
posture and Orrorin's humerous was more akin to modern day humanity.
This is evidence
that Orrorin was a Rockthrower since his humerous was a throwing
humerous arm bone.
I do not know if anyone found any elbow bones of 6 million year old
hominids for it was
reported that other Orrorin bones were found at Kapsomin, Kapcheberek,
and Aragai.
The point I am making is that it is time for anthropologists to
analyze prehuman bones
not in isolation of the bipedal leg bones but in conjunction with the
arm and hand bones
in that Throwing was driving the change from apelike creatures to
human creatures.
I am told we have almost a full skeleton of Homo habilis. But noone
has done a adequate
analysis of the comparison of the arm and hand bone anatomy in
conjunction with the
leg bone bipedalism.
The extinction of Neanderthals, is probably due to the fact that Cro
Magnon was the
superior arm thrower. One troop armed with spears and clubs is no
match for another
troop that pommels Neanderthals to death at a distance with rock
throwing.
We have almost complete skeletons of Neanderthals and CroMagnon, yet
no anthropologist
to date has closely examined and compared the small differences in
bone anatomy of
the throwing fingers, arms and the rest of the body of these two
species.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:25:44 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 6, 9:29 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Lip service. It's a shame you haven't studied anthropology.
Fossils have been studied, from head to toe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:16:27 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
(snipped)
Now here is what physics tells us of efficient energy bipedalism and
of throwing.
Both are the same in terms of physics in that the joint should be at
the center.
What I mean is that the length of the upper arm should equal the
length of the
lower arm plus the hand length so that the elbow forms a V shape in
the act of
throwing.
The Physics maximum efficiency for bipedalism is the same as Throwing
in that
the knee should form a V shape where upper leg = lower leg + foot
length.
In other words if you have two sticks of unequal lengths joined
together at a joint
then this devise is going to throw the furthest or run the fastest if
the two sticks
with a joint are equal lengthed sticks.
Chimps do not have upper arm equal to lower arm + hand, nor do chimps
have upper leg = lower leg + foot and so chimps are not Rockthrowers
nor
bipeds.
So given any ancient hominid fossil or prehuman fossil we can measure
how
much they were bipeds and how much they were Throwers if we have
the sufficient bones to make that assessement.
I do not know if the humerus bone of Orrorin is capable of determining
how much
it was in this equation Upper arm = Lower arm + hand length
But we do have a Orrorin femur to compare to
For the Physics of Throwing, the upper leg bone length should be a bit
larger
than the upper arm bone length. I think I may have computed this extra
distance
some years past when I volunteered a Wikipedia entry for physics of
throwing
bone anatomy. It is a larger length for the upper leg bone over the
upper arm
bone for maximum throwing coupled with bipedalism. And here, the
physics
would make the pelvis region another joint for equal length of arms to
legs.
So it is nice to see that Physics enters the arena of Anthropology and
puts the
Stonethrowing theory on a physics basis or foundation.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:36:38 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 6, 10:16 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Once again, there is no hard evidence for manuports early, Ardi and
other early
hominids had million of years to leave exotic materials around the
land scape.
These are not that difficult to find after the stone age began, there
is no reason
to think Ardi was deliberately hiding evidence from us.
http://tinyurl.com/38osfr
It's all pretty simple really....
Watch this baby's arms.
http://tinyurl.com/yc6e6kp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:12:11 +1100, "rmacfarl" <...@alphalink.com.au
Don't waste your time in a one-sided conversation with a Usenet
uber-loon. It just feeds on the attention. Ignore it & it will go
away...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Plutonium
"Lee Olsen" <...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 10:16 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Once again, there is no hard evidence for manuports early, Ardi
and
other early
hominids had million of years to leave exotic materials around
the
land scape.
These are not that difficult to find after the stone age began,
there
is no reason
to think Ardi was deliberately hiding evidence from us.
http://tinyurl.com/38osfr
It's all pretty simple really....
Watch this baby's arms.
http://tinyurl.com/yc6e6kp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:16:20 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
I am 170 cm tall.
My length of tip of index finger to elbow equals length of knee to
ankle of foot = 41 cm
My length of center-of-hand to elbow equals length of elbow to
shoulder = 29 cm
My length of knee to hip equals length of knee to foot = 51 cm
Physics demands the knee form a midpoint of upper leg to lower leg
and where elbow forms a midpoint of upper arm to lower arm in order
to throw or "throw the legs in running."
This is the Physics of a Thrower of rocks and stones. None of the
chimps or apes
have this physics of arms and legs because none of them evolved to a
living
on Throwing. They have to be midpoints in order to Throw so that
throwing is
efficient. If they were unequal in length then the arms and legs are
more "hooklike"
to climb trees and live in trees. No human alive is able to climb a
tree or live
in a tree as does a ape or monkey and the reason being is the physics
of the
anatomy of their bodies. Unequal distances of lower to upper arm or
legs provides
such a body as hooks to climb and live in trees. Equal distances of
lower and upper
arm or leg means the body is evolving into "throwing physics."
All the hominid fossil bones found such as Orrorin, Toumai, Selam,
Lucy, Homo
habilis point to this evolutionary change. They were all throwers
since their
leg bones were bipedal. But not until Homo habilis were they so
efficient at
throwing that they could leave their river's edge as homes.
Bipedalism is a part of this equation of midpoints in that to enhance
throwing
the leg bones of upper leg and lower leg have to form the knee as
midpoint
so that throwing is enhanced and running is none other than the legs
throwing
the rest of the body forward.
Chimps can walk upright for a short distance and chimps can throw
**underarm**
not overarm. But since Chimps and all other apes and monkeys rely on
trees
to live in, require the knee and elbow to not be midpoints.
--- quoting from an old post of mine ---
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.bio.misc
From: "a_plutonium" <...@hotmail.comDate: 4 Mar 2007 12:32:26 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 4 2007 2:32 pm
Subject: utexas gives a word description of the chimp versus human
elbow Re: &2& New Book: IN THE COSMOS, MOST SPECIES THAT BECOMES
INTELLIGENT PASSED THROUGH A EVOLUTIONARY PERIOD OF STONETHROWING
--- quoting http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html#anchor1840119
---
The chimpanzee distal humerus contrasts with the human. The human
lacks the
robust lateral supracondylar ridge, a high and robust lateral
epicondyle, and the
steep, sharp, lateral margin of the olecranon fossa . The chimpanzee
forearm is
relatively long in comparison to humans . Chimp radius and ulna are
more curved
than in humans and the chimpanzee distal radius has a radiocarpal
joint surface
that diverges medially. The major differences between human and
chimpanzee
limbs are contrasts in relative proportion. Chimpanzees have large
powerful arms,
slightly longer than their very short legs. Human arms are about 70%
as long as
human legs.
--- end quoting http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bramblet/ant301/seven.html#anchor1840119
---
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:35:41 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 7, 9:16 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Good for you.
Have you found any Miocene manuports yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:39:54 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
(snipped)
I am happy the Utexas website is still up and running:
--- quoting that website ---
The chimpanzee distal humerus contrasts with the human. The human
lacks the robust lateral supracondylar ridge, a high and robust
lateral epicondyle, and the steep, sharp, lateral margin of the
olecranon fossa . The chimpanzee forearm is relatively long in
comparison to humans . Chimp radius and ulna are more curved than in
humans and the chimpanzee distal radius has a radiocarpal joint
surface that diverges medially. The major differences between human
and chimpanzee limbs are contrasts in relative proportion. Chimpanzees
have large powerful arms, slightly longer than their very short legs.
Human arms are about 70% as long as human legs.
Long bone indices of Humans and Chimpanzees
[ From Aiello and Dean 1990, Pp. 249]
Species
Intermembral Index
Humerofemoral Index
Brachial Index
Crural Index
Human (male)
69.7
71.4
77.9
82.4
Human (female)
68.5
69.8
77.0
81.3
Chimpanzee (male)
108.0
101.1
91.9
79.8
Chimpanzee (female)
109.4
102
92.4
80.4
Pygmy chimpanzee (male & female)
102.2
98.0
91.9
82.6
where:
Intermembral index = [(humerus + radius) x 100]/)femur + tibia)
Humerofemoral index = (humerus x 100)/femur
Brachial index = (radius x 100)/humerus
Crural index = (tibia x 100)/femur
--- end quoting the Utexas website ---
Notice in particular that in the human upper arm to lower arm and
human upper
leg to lower leg where they form midpoints at the elbow and knee
respectively,
but that chimps and all other apes cannot have this design since they
require
unequal distances of upper to lower in order to live in trees and
climb trees
rapidly. Unequal upper to lower provides their arms and legs as hooks.
Equal
upper and lower provides their arms and legs as "throwers, and
throwing of
the body in running."
The entire science of human evolution is summed up in one word--
Throwing.
Some 10 million years ago, probably Oreopithecus in Sardinia in
Southern
Italy started throwing rocks and stones as a habitual behaviour. This
individual
may have had a mutation that he constantly was fascinated by picking
up
rocks and stones and throwing them. This gave the individual
unprecedented
superiority over all the other members of his troop in that he would
get more
food by stoning to death small animals and would get more females to
mate
with and leave his genetics of habitual thrower in many offspring.
Eventually those offspring would have mutated their bone structure to
bipedalism
since bipeds increase the throwing skills started. These would become
Orrorin
some 6 million years ago. And with ever more evolutionary changes of
bones
and muscles to increase throwing would end up as our species.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:00:03 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 7, 9:39 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
No answer
<snipped
And by the way, chimps are out as models.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:08:51 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
I saw a fight last night of a famous Russian vs. American in mixed
martial arts
on TV. The Russian won in the second round after 1:32 minutes as he
delivered a TKO to the chin. Some say this Russian with his explosive
moves is the world's best fighter. The burst of energy he has in
moments
is unbelievable.
The TKO used what I had forgotten to list above, and is the distance
from the
ankle to the hip which is equal to the distance of the tip of fingers
when standing
upright touching the ankle. For me it is 91 cm. This is a form of
exercise
which I think is called "knee straights", where you have to keep the
legs straight
and with the tip of the fingers touch the floor which is hard for me
to do, so
I touch my ankle. So the hip forms a midpoint and this is important in
throwing
for the frame becomes a fulcrum at the hip and gives strength to the
throw.
Just as the Russian boxer had strength from the TKO throw last night
as he
sliced an uppercut to the chin using his hip as fulcrum.
Let me summarize the list and put it in a better ordering.
(i) I am 170 cm tall.
(ii) My distance of center-of-hand to elbow equals distance of elbow
to
shoulder = 29 cm
(iii) My distance of knee to hip equals distance of knee to foot = 51
cm
(iv) My distance of tip of index finger to elbow equals distance of
knee to
ankle of foot = 41 cm
(v) When standing upright and holding the legs straight, my distance
of hip to ankle is equal to distance of tip of fingers at ankle to
hip. This equals 91 cm. In other words, doing a exercise of knee
straights.
So as one compares the anthropology bones of hominids found so far.
One sees that the
evolutionary changes in morphology of the bones is to an ever
increasing approach to where
the elbow, knee, hip become midpoints so the body design ends up with
maximum throwing
efficiency. It first started with the hand and arm bones with
Oreopithecus and by the time
of Orrorin the throwing had created bipedalism and by the time of Homo
habilis, these three
midpoints were very much becoming the midpoints that all modern day
humans have.
Now in the NOVA series, they made a pretty dumb statement using the
concept of
"flatlining" in no changes of brain capacity from Orrorin and Toumai
to that of
Selam and Lucy for about 4 million years. What the Stonethrowing
theory implies
is that Selam and Lucy were never on the branch of evolution that
would become
Homo sapiens, but that Orrorin was on the branch and so was Homo
habilis. And
further implies that Orrorin of 6 million years ago migrated far south
into Africa
to emerge as Homo habilis of 2 million years ago. So the issue of
"flatlining" is
only convoluted thinking in that noone has yet found a fossil hominid
of 4 million
years old near the Homo habilis site that shows marked evolutionary
advances
over that of Selam and Lucy.
So that the Stonethrowing theory implies that if anthropologists look
hard enough
near the sites of Homo habilis, only 4 million year deposits, would
find an advanced
hominid over that of its contemporaries of Selam and Lucy.
And Stonethrowing theory would further predict that as the ancestor of
Homo habilis
moved north into Africa that he would extinct all other hominids in
his trek north and
eventually into Eurasia and Asia.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:22:37 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 8, 12:08 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
And uneducated.
Homo hablis is not "4 million yr old Homo habilis"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis
"Homo habilis (pronounced /ˈhoʊmoʊ ˈhæbəlɪs/) ("handy man") is a
species of the genus Homo,
which lived from approximately 2.5 million to at least 1.6 million
years ago.."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:21:45 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
First off, let me apologize to NOVA and to Mr. Rick Potts for not
explicitly making it
clear that the theory they are trumpeting is Climate Change whereas I
am upset
that NOVA is pandering to our modern day dilemma of Climate Change due
to
Global Warming caused by human activity. I just did not emphasize the
Climate
Change enough, over that of Global Warming. Still, NOVA and Potts are
on a
wrong track as to how and why humans evolved out of a ancient ape-
stock
of creatures. It is Stonethrowing or RockThrowing that is the heart of
human
evolution.
(snipped)
The above gives us a Analytical Tool Gauge of Human Evolution. To
maximize
throwing then the elbow, knee, hip have to become midpoints. So to set
up a
Analysis Kit we simply look to the chimpanzee as our first or earliest
ancestor
and assume or pretend as if modern day chimp was thrust back in time
to
Sardina, ancient Italy of some 10 million years ago and where one
chimp was
born with a proclivity behaviour of taking rocks and stones and
throwing them
**overarm**. So we know the data of the average chimp upper arm, lower
arm,
upper leg, lower leg and we know the data of the average human with
those
measures.
Now we thus can fill in the rest of the evolutionary changes given
those
end points.
We have some fossils of Oreopithecus of about 8 to 10 million years
ago. Do
the show signs of numeric movement in favor of a throwing human? That
is,
does Oreopithecus show signs that the arm or leg bones is becoming
more
humanlike with the elbow and knee as midpoint? I believe they do.
The same goes for all the specimen fossils of Orrorin. That we see a
divergence
away from the Chimp elbow and knee and a approach of the human elbow
and
knee as midpoints. We can even give a percentage of movement in the
direction
of human elbow and knee as midpoints.
Now we can test or examine all the Australopithecus arm and leg bones
found
and even where the pelvis or hip as midpoints are found in such full
fossils as
Lucy and Selam. What percent movement to midpoint is there in
Australopithecus?
If there is not a large movement in Australopithecus versus Orrorin,
since one
is 3 million years old and Orrorin is 6, means that Australopithecus
was a side
branch and that the real human ancestor of the time of
Australopithecus has never
been found in fossils.
Finally, we come to Homo habilis with nearly a complete skeleton
fossil, especially
of the arms and legs and even hips. So how much of a percentage of
moving in
the direction of midpoints is Homo habilis? Is he more than 50% in the
direction
of midpoints as compared to Homo sapiens and 50% away from the Chimp
arm and leg anatomy? I would hazard to guess that Homo habilis is
beyond a
50% approach to midpoint.
Anthropology as a science has never set up this scale of measure or
this guage
to testing. And it is about time that Anthropology does so.
Anthropology as a
science has been too much of a country-club science that never set up
metric measures of evaluating evolutionary progress. Anthropology had
never
taken Throwing seriously. The past anthropologists thought of throwing
as only
that of tool making and finding sharpened rocks. They never thought
that apelike
to humanlike would take 5 million years just to throw rocks overarm
and which
there would be no fossil evidence, or that they never bothered to look
for "throwing
rocks".
In the NOVA show it was said that hippopotamus bones were found near
Selam.
This suggests a river near Selam and that perhaps hippos were easy
animals to
kill by a band of stonethrowers. Maybe Hippos are especially
vulnerable to rock
throwing. So that proof of stonethrowing can be found if one finds
ancient animal
fossils that had their bones pommelled by hominids.
Anyway, the world of anthropology has ample fossils on record with arm
and leg bones.
But the community of anthropologists have never had a coherent logical
analysis
of those arm and leg bones, until now. Under one unifying theory--
Stonethrowing,
we can make this guage of analysis.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:40:39 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 8, 8:21 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
People who make errors on the magnitude of
"4 million yr old Homo habilis" really are not
to be taken seriously. You would probably do
a lot better reading Potts' book and learning
something, rather than pretending to be his critic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:31:15 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
I am guessing that modern day science is good at extrapolating a full
length of a fossil
humerus or femur or other leg and arm bones given only a fraction of
those bones. I
am guessing that if given say 1/4 of a arm or leg bone we can
extrapolate the full
length of the bone. I hope this is true because it would be extremely
difficult to find
full arm and leg bones.
Tonight I was looking to see if anyone analyzed what the full length
of Orrorin's femur
and humerus would have been. I hit these websites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrorin
3/4 femur?? 1/2 of a humerus??
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Orrorin.html
--- quoting ---
Many scholars have considered that the earliest hominids were small
animals; the femur and humerus of Orrorin are 1.5 times larger than
those of AL 288.1, probably equivalent in size to a female common
chimpanzee, indicating that the ancestor may have been larger than
previously envisaged." (Senut et al., 2001).
--- end quoting ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
A collection of many Ardipithecus fossils have been found. They are
notable for the small brain capacity and lived about 4.5 million years
ago.
Now one item seems to be problematic, in that the brain size seems to
have
stagnated from Orrorin to Homo habilis. I am still thinking that the
smarter
hominid between Orrorin and Homo habilis has not yet been found. That
is
a good possibility.
But another answer maybe on the lines of this reasoning of inbreeding.
Stay
with me for a moment as I try to explain a possibility. Perhaps there
are no
intermediate brain sizes between Orrorin and Homo habilis. Could there
be
an explanation for that? Where we have increasing changes in arm and
leg
anatomy to increase throwing abilities, yet have a brain size that is
as NOVA
calls it "flatlined". Is there a possible explanation that agrees with
that?
Perhaps so. Consider that these early ancestors of humans would be
throwing
bands that roam and live together especially when it comes to
defending themselves
against predators and against other roaming bands. Let me call them
tribes.
As they roam away from other tribes, then there would be an awful lot
of inbreeding.
Inbreeding to the point where they retain their "throwing for a
living" but where their
brain capacity seems to just flatline for millions of years.
We can even consider each tribe as becoming almost separate species,
since they
are separate from other tribes for many generations of time.
And that as a superior tribe meets a inferior tribe and stones to
death that tribe
there is little to no infusion of new genes into the tribe.
So I wonder if the evolution of tribes and inbreeding is an answer to
how the Throwing
capacity increases yet the brain capacity seems to flatline for
millions of years.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:38:34 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
I am going to have to add Inbreeding into the Human Evolution story.
Inbreeding
is a problem which is seldom adequately addresses in the evolution of
a new species.
Orrorin was a different species from apes because his genetics were
such that
his bone and muscle would no longer have viable offspring with apes.
And herein
lies the problem. The new species of Orrorin is so new and so small
that
inbreeding is inevitable. The way to get around inbreeding is to have
a original
tribe split up and go elsewhere and remain isolated elsewhere for some
time
to later rejoin and intermarry. This is how modern society copes with
a gene
pool. So if we think we have a problem of interbreeding, then imagine
what
problem faced Orrorin and the first Stonethrowers. They needed a
closed
knit group acting in unison to ward off predators with rocks and
stones. But
they also needed new outside genetics to stabilize the harm of
inbreeding.
We see the problem of Inbreeding in that of the Hobbit fossil found
on some remote and isolated Asian island. The Hobbit culture still
retained
its tool technologies but since their genetic pool was so badly
inbreed that
they shrunk in size and especially their brain size flatlined.
We see it also in Africa in the Pygmy culture that had inbreeding.
So this is an explanation for the flatlining of brain size from
Orrorin to Homo habilis.
The setup of evolutionary mechanisms to gain a new species, requires
"flatlining"
because of the conditions of "numbers in breeding". The first mutation
of Stonethrowing
enhancement would liked to have mated with every possible female to
put that
gene into as many offspring as possible. But ape tribes in 6 to 10
million years
ago would have been small. So you have a new genetics of Stonethrowing
working
its way through small tribes such as Orrorin.
So, can the reader sense the problem? The genes for throwing are in a
small tribe
and as that tribe grows larger in number it also grows by inbreeding
too much. So
we have two antagonistic forces of evolution. The genes for
Stonethrowing are
superior, but after a few matings, we have the problem of inbreeding.
And the
force of inbreeding would thus explain that the overall size of the
new generations
would flatline the brain capacity and make for smaller sized
individuals. Inbreeding
is often deleterious to the new born.
So we have about 4 million years of unexplained stagnancy of brain
size development
from Orrorin to that of Homo habilis. I suggested that we probably
have not yet
found a fossil in Southern Africa, or south of Kenya which is an
intermediate sized
brain Stonethrower from that of Orrorin and Homo habilis. I suggested
we just simply
have not yet found this protohuman. But another possibility is that of
inbreeding.
That we may have found all the human lines of evolution and that the
reason for
the flatlining of 4 million years for brain capacity is the reason of
the small populations
of Stonethrowers and their dependence on Inbreeding.
Now this probably sheds new light on Neanderthal and all the other
tribes of Stonethrowers.
That probably none of them were extincted by the prehumans but were
devastated of their
men and their women were mated by the victors. The need for correcting
the Inbreeding
was a stronger need by belligerent stonethrowers than was the urge to
kill all.
I am getting my first taste of this mechanism of coping with
inbreeding as a vital role
in Evolution theory. So it looks as though I probably have to weave
the competing effects
of a advantageous mutation of Stonethrowing and then faced with the
deleterious effect
that a tribe needs to get new outside genetics from its constant
inbreeding.
P.S. Also, there is a very silly hypothesis going around, that has
hooked some rather silly
thinkers. It is called the Wet-ape theory trying to explain why humans
are so hairless. The
answer to which the Stonethrowing theory would instantly say was
caused by having to
run, sweat and carry and throw rocks. That is alot of perspiration on
a hot African sun.
Hairy apes would overheat in a rock throwing battle. But also, I want
to mention that
most of the evolution of Stonethrowers would have occurred near or on
a River bed
where rocks are instantly available. So most of human evolution from
Oreopithecus
to Orrorin to Homo habilis would have followed Rivers. So early man
was constantly
in contact with water.
So why was there a increase in brain size by Homo habilis? I would
wager that
"fire" was invented by Homo habilis that freed him of living near a
river, so that
Homo habilis, having both Throwing and fire could now wander into non
river areas
and live there. These two huge technologies of rockthrowing and fire
required
and increased brain size.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:48:21 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 9, 12:38 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
No tree ape is a good thrower. Those who are most in the tree
dependent are the worst,
like gibbons. Chimps spend much more time on the ground and are
better, and do more throwing
than orangs. Humans, almost totally dependent on the ground are the
best throwers.
We know Lucy could walk upright, and did so for millions of years,
but
would have been
a poor runner and thrower. That doesn't mean she couldn't move
quickly
for a short distance,
but her arms and fingers show she, like chimps, could not manipulate
rocks very well.
It is only when manuports show up in the archaeological record that
running and stone throwing
would be practical in a hominid. And this turns up on the new
climate-
driven savanna, not in the forests
where all the other throwing-challenged forest apes live.
So walking and early bipedalism was around millions of years before
rock ever became part of the human arsenal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No answer of course, that's why you will never see the stonethrowing
hypothesis as a primary key to human evolution in Current
Anthropology.
Secondary maybe, but as the driving force it simly turns up too late.
http://tinyurl.com/yh5xcsl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:59:29 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 8, 10:31 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
Yes, and unfortunately for you, falsifies throwing as the driving
force of human
evolution.
No tree ape is a good thrower. Those who are most in the tree
dependent are the worst,
like gibbons. Chimps spend much more time on the ground and are
better, and do more throwing
than orangs. Humans, almost totally dependent on the ground are the
best throwers.
We know Lucy could walk upright, and did so for millions of years, but
would have been
a poor runner and thrower. That doesn't mean she couldn't move quickly
for a short distance,
but her arms and fingers show she, like chimps, could not manipulate
rocks very well.
It is only when manuports show up in the archaeological record that
running and stone throwing
would be practical in a hominid. And this turns up on the new climate-
driven savanna, not in the forests
where all the other throwing-challenged forest apes live.
So walking and early bipedalism was around millions of years before
rock ever became part of
the human arsenal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:04:11 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
Olsen is a typical parrot for the anthropology community and for NOVA.
It is easy to see the huge flaw in Olsen's above nonsense. The human
elbow, knee, and hip joints form midpoints as a Physics of "throwing".
Anyone can attestify to that with their own body measures and compare
those bones to a chimp or any other ape. Anyone can see that no
animal other than humans can throw a baseball overarm and play
baseball.
Orrorin would have been able to throw overarm and play a very crude
game of baseball some 6 million years ago.
Chimps can not throw overarm because their elbow, knee, hip are not
midpoints. It takes at least 6 to 8 million years of natural selection
to make a Chimp's bone and muscle anatomy to form midpoints of
its elbow, knee, and hip.
Olsen denies physics, well, he doesn't understand physics in the first
place.
From Olsen's above statement, Olsen seems to think that the evolution
of elbow
knee and hip to form midpoints took only 2 million years and was
disconnected
or nonfunctional to bipedalism. What a zany understanding Olsen has of
bones
and how they work.
Question for Lee Olsen (if that is his real name) : I doubt he ever
took Calculus in College for he is
so out of place in any science newsgroup with his illogic. And that
should be the credentials
for any subscribers to sci newsgroups is that they should have at
minimum
a year of College calculus. So, Olsen, prove to me and readers that
you
have at least one full year of college Calculus by stating what
college you attended
at what year and took Calculus.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:17:52 -0800 (PST), Lee Olsen <...@hotmail.com
On Nov 9, 1:04 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<...@gmail.com
No answer again, just lip service. That's really all you have.
Not NOVA, I read the journals mostly, a few books, but almost never
see
NOVA, nor does NOVA influence or is it cited in the anthro journals as
proof
of anything. Who gives a damn what NOVA is doing, unless maybe
filming
gibbons in action.
Hmm, if there is a flaw in my nonsense, why are you posting here on
sap
instead of in Current Anthropology?
But the problem is, the fossils show habitual bipedalism long before
there is any evidence for throwing.
Maybe, but he would also have to have a crude form of bipedalism
to do so, if he could play at all. So at that point in time you still
have a which came first 'chicken or the egg' problem and why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzRCHASvsw
So if throwing was the driving force, and the last common ancestor
could walk this well, why don't all tailless apes throw better
than they do? After all, it is your driving force, it must have been
a selective advantage for some reason back in the forests.
Chimps stand before they throw. In order to be effective at throwing,
in
order for a throw to be successful, to get any power in it, to kill a
rabbit
or something, one has to be standing and feet firmly planted or you
could run like a quarterback and throw, but that requires running
first.
Upright came first no matter how you cut the mustard. A human baby
may be able to throw food on the floor before it walks, but that move
sure isn't going to send a lion running or put meat on the table.
Physics has nothing to do with the evidence. A baseball pitcher
doesn't
sit on the mound to throw. Gibbons represent the best model so far
that
is consistent with the fossil evidence. Let's see your YouTube clips
of one throwing, after all, he does pretty well with crude standing
and running.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzRCHASvsw
So simple logic says the gibbon should throw as well as he runs after
a
dog if your imagination-based hypothesis is correct.
I'm waiting for your film.
The reason there is no direct quote cited is because you made that
up.
Like your misunderstanding of how fossil skulls get crushed.
Well, I'll call your bluff. This is not the only forum I post on. I'm
a well
known flintknapper here in the NW and can prove my name is same.
How would you like to play a game of liars poker for $5000 or so?
I'm posting from sap, not a math forum. One does not need a course
in calculus to know no one competent in anthropology would
claim skulls were crushed by other hominids unless green fractures
could be demonstrated.
My daughter got an 'A' in calculus and she doesn't know anymore about
anthropology than you do, which seems to be zilch.
So math credentials in this field mean very little, is anything,
fossils and
manuports do.
Wipe the egg off your crushed skulls, go back to school, take a
course
in anthro 101 and come back when you know something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:18:59 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
So apparently you do not believe humans can throw overarm. Apparently
overarm throwing by humans is not evidence for you.
Apparently you do not believe the elbow, knee, hip are midpoints of
arms,
legs, body in the act of throwing. And apparently you do not
understand that
elbows have to be the midpoint in order to throw overarm.
So to Lee Olsen, the fact that Homo sapiens is an overarm thrower
whose
elbow is the midpoint of body arm plan, is no evidence that Homo
sapiens
can throw.
Someone in science should make that as a placard:
Lee Olsen words to the effect : Homo sapiens throws overarm is no
evidence that Homo
sapiens throws overarm.
No, it is logically clear that you would not have bipedalism first
driving a biped to start to throw. You would have throwing first
of both underarm and then overarm, which then drives the need
to make the legs more efficient in the act of throwing.
Chimps can throw underarm but not overarm and chimps are not
bipeds. So when a chimp starts overarm throwing to make a living,
forces the leg morphology to help in the overarm throwing.
The evidence is abundantly clear that throwing came first, in that
human arm bones and muscles changed far more than chimp arm
bones and muscle, and less so for the leg bones and muscles.
The changes of human arm and leg starting with a ape arm and leg
require more than 2 million years of time to end up with Homo sapiens
arm and leg bones. And the arm bones changed far more than the leg
bones.
If Olsen knew some science, and had learned some Calculus, he
would know that you cannot change all those bones in a span of
2 million years, but require some 10 million years.
Does Olsen represent the typical anthropologist when he dismisses
physics?
I am sure most anthropologists and scientists reading this thread
knows
that Olsen is not even a scientist, but the point is well made by
Olsen's
prejudices, that anthropologists do not seem to pay attention to the
physics
of anthropology. Although NOVA had some wrong physics with Lieberman,
there is some correct physics in this thread.
The physics that in throwing, with upper and lower appendages, cannot
be
maximized if the upper and lower are unequal in length and that the
elbow
has to be the midpoint in the act of throwing. And it turns out that
running
is throwing of the body forward where the knee is another midpoint.
No apes have the elbow, knee, hip as midpoints, only humans. That
implies
throwing came first in Rockthrowing which forced bipedalism to
increase
throwing efficiency and where the hip is the midpoint of the body as
fulcrum.
You need Calculus to realize and figure out that the human bone
anatomy
took about 8 to 10 million years to change from the ape body plan to
the
human body plan, all driven by throwing.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:10:22 -0800 (PST), Archimedes Plutonium <...@gmail.com
I am looking around to see what is available on the upper and lower
arms of prehumans
for a measure of the elbow as midpoint. Anthropology of the past
history made almost
all of its conjecturing centered around the brain size and the teeth.
Well the brain size
and teeth are indicators, but the important bones that is the
foundation of Anthropology
is the arm and leg bones, especially the arm and hands, because humans
are merely
ancient apes that began to throw overarm. A more apt name for our
species is Homo
thrower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
gives some pictures of fossil skeletons and it shows Lucy where
the humerus upper arm still shorter than the lower arm. So although
Lucy was an overarm thrower, her tribe is still millions of years away
from having the elbow as midpoint of the throwing arm. But what is
surprizing is that Homo habilis with increased brain size seems to
be equal in arm proportions to that of Lucy as witness:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:K7Y4p5QHIyAJ:www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/faculty /mchenry/BodyProportionsHhabilis04.pdf+homo+habilis+radius+ulna+humerus&cd=2&hl= en&ct=clnk&gl=us
--- quoting from website ---
humerus shaft diameters are roughly similar and
femur shaft diameters are less than those of AL
288-1. Johanson and colleagues (Johanson et al.,
1987) speculated, therefore, that its humero-
femoral ratio might have been 95% or more, as
compared to values of 85% for AL 288-1, 72% for
Homo, and 100% for Pan.
--- end quoting ---
I am just not in luck with the data of anthropology. That the
anthropologists ignore
the important measures of arm length and whether elbow, knee, hips are
midpoints
and seem to focus on unimportant data of cranium size.
Someday in the future, fossils of prehumans will list data like this:
51
of
distance
So the day when anthropologists take all their fossil finds and lists
the data
to reflect the distances of arms and leg bones as to Throwing, can
the
evolutionary history of our ancestors make sense.
Evolutionary changes in teeth are lagging indicators because molar
teeth can still
eat meat. And as I spoke earlier about Inbreeding in small tribes
where all its
members depend on each other for throwing defense against predators,
that Inbreeding
would tend to make the tribe stature smallish and flatlined brain
case. But the
evolutionary pressure to increase throwing efficiency is still at
work, so that the best
tribe of throwers is going to thrive prosper and multiply. I do not
know if any
biologist evolution theory talks about the disadvantages of small
tribes and inbreeding.
The modern day human has no problem over the issue of inbreeding since
humans
are so numerous that inbreeding never comes to our attention, only as
a crime. But back
in the days of Oreopithecus and Orrorin who were the most advanced
throwers of their
time, their throwing would confer advantages on them to increase the
genes for throwing,
but since their tribes were so small in numbers that they faces a
counterpressure of
the disadvantage of Inbreeding. So when NOVA questions why brains
flatlined from
Orrorin to Homo habilis, the answer is either the advanced thrower had
not yet been
found in a fossil, or that Inbreeding caused the flatlining or both.
Now I see no reason why a college or university with credentials in
anthropology
could not fill out a complete table giving the distance measure of all
the arm and leg
bones associated with throwing of all the fossils found to date. No
reason why this
could not be done and done in a few months time. For the data would be
very much
revealing of the entire picture of human evolution since it has a
single foundational
base-- throwing of rocks and stones.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|