Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo.....

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Georg Roth: "any publications on aquatic ape theory ?"
• Previous message: donald e. tyler: "Abnormal chromosome numbers other than in humans"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."
• Next in thread: H. M. Hubey: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."

Alex Duncan <aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> writes:

>other parts of the body. Since these hypothetical animals are spending a
>lot of time in the water, they won't be supporting much weight over their
>hind limbs.

OK. YOu got a good point there. Would you also expect some real
reason for why the Neandertal bones are so massive? Yes, we
are told that they were all like olympic athletes.

>Therefore, weight estimates derived from hind limb
>parameters such as femoral midshaft diameter or femoral head articular
>surface area should be too small when compared to estimates from other
>methods.

So you are looking for some hominid bones (or proto-hominid
i..e from the aquatic stage) in which you'd expect to see
lighter bones. It seems reasonable superficially, but why?

Their ancestors were quadpeds. They had four appendages to support
their bodies. Now they have two. Besides, the grasping foot didn't
go away overnight even when they were bipedal, so why should then
their bones (femurs) get lighter for the same duration?

The rest of them seem even more stringent and even less
purposeful.

-- 



				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey

• Next message: Georg Roth: "any publications on aquatic ape theory ?"
• Previous message: donald e. tyler: "Abnormal chromosome numbers other than in humans"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."
• Next in thread: H. M. Hubey: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."