|
|
Re: Who Killed the Australopithecines?
cc3265@albnyvms.bitnet
3 Apr 1995 23:43:48 GMT
In article <bardD6FMM6.BJ7@netcom.com>, bard@netcom.com (BARD) writes:
>In article <3lkt8m$klk@rebecca.albany.edu>, <cc3265@albnyvms.bitnet> wrote:
>>In article <bardD6CIAw.n4I@netcom.com>, bard@netcom.com (BARD) writes:
>>>In article <3lf34k$a9d@jupiter.wichitaks.hmpd.com>,
>>>Jim Foley <jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <bardD673D5.M88@netcom.com>, BARD <bard@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything being equal, they were better equipped to survive
>>>>> than either ape or man; yet they perished... How and by whom?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bard
>>>>
>>>>On what grounds do you say this? I have never read anything that would
>>>>suggest it, and it doesn't even make much sense to say such a thing.
>>>>Chimps are probably better at living on fruit in jungles,
>>>>australopithecines were probably better at living on nuts and berries in
>>>>a savannah environement. Neither are "better" in some absolute sense of
>>>>the word.
>>>>
>>>>I'm also curious about your earlier messages about proving that piths
>>>>are extinct. What more proof would you want than the fact that they're
>>>>not found? (A fossilized autobiography of the last living
>>>>australopithecine?) We can be 99.999999% sure they're gone, and that's
>>>>good enough for me.
>>>>--
>>>>Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins
>>>>Jim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Evolution suggests a progression in adaptability. Working backwards
>>> we see the Pith's hands and feet were more evolved than the chimpanzee;
>>> the chimp's more so than the baboon; the baboon more than the
>>> tarsier, etc...
>>>
>>> Piths could do more things, travel greater distances, eat a wider
>>> variety of food, employ more clever ways to get this food; evade
>>> danger better, and yet the chimpanzee survives and the Pith
>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And... not finding something is not "99.99999" proof it
>>> doesn't exit. In this decade alone several species thought
>>> long extinct have been discovered still with us.
>>>
>>>
>>> BARD
>>
>>Well, okay, since you seem to be serious I'll throw out a couple of reasons.
>>1) Habitat. Chimps stayed in the forest, got the better resources -- piths
>>got forced out on the savanna. You weren't specific about which Pith you
>>were talking about, of course (there's at least 5 of them now). Some were
>>extremely specialized, and so it's not surprising they're no longer with us.
>>All of them had smaller canines than apes (well, afarensis was pretty close &
>>ramidus might be an ape, but the others were smaller fanged). Probably less
>>strength judging from ape/human comparisons today (& piths were smaller than
>>modern humans). So, I'd say they were left with the less choice habitat,
>>possibly not of their own free will.
>
> Such sweeping claims..."Chimps stayed in the forest, got the
> better resources --piths were forced out on the savanna."
>
> By whom? Chimps with baseball bats?
>
No, you silly person! Chimps with stronger muscle power & bigger teeth.
Actually, what I should have said was that the *ancestors* of what we
currently call Australopithecines became the marginal forest population --
possibly because they were the "wimp chimps" (only a metaphor, I know they
weren't actually chimps).
>
>
>>2) Brain power. Didn't have alot. Out on the savanna they would encounter
>>lots of selection pressures, more than in the forest. Later larger brained
>>hominids would have the advantage.
>
> Piths come in at about 5-600 cubic centimeters.
> H. erectus, 6- 800 cc.
>
Wrong again -- A.afarensis averaged between 375-500 cubic centimeters.
A.africanus had about 450 there, A.aethiopicus about 410. A.boisei was
around 510-530, and A.robustus was the biggest kid on the block with a
whopping 530 cubic centimeters. H. habilis had around 500-800 and
H.erectus measured from 730 to *1225* cubic centimeters. Look it up in
any freshman physical anthropology textbook.
> H. erectus faced one of the most cunning animals ever
> in the Austrolopithecine.
>
>
???? Refer to above again -- study it.
>
>
>> The piths did have a mechanical advantage over later hominids in the area
>>of speed, so I am given to understand. The wider hips of later hominids
>>slowed them down. However, the piths were not bipedal as we are today, the
>>modern striding gait did not come along till erectus -- those were the ones
>>who could walk anywhere (& proved it by doing just that). The piths, over all,
>>just couldn't measure up to the competition. I think your hero worship might
>>be a bit misplaced. (Though, I admit, they are a fascinating group)
>
>
> The footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania are particularly striking.
> They were made by Piths three million years ago. They are without
> question footprints of a creature that could walk as well
> as H. erectus.
>
> And, yes, I do worship my ancestors.
>
>
Ah, that explains it!!!!
>> Incidently, you might want to read up on chimps. They are quite remarkable
>>and intelligent in their own right. Their diet is quite varied, in fact some
>>of the piths were much more specialized in their preferences than chimps are.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What...?
>
> Do you make up this stuff as you go, or what?
>
No, I teach it. The robust Australopithecines were very specialized chewing
machines -- similar to gorillas today.
>
>
>So, I wouldn't sell them short. They would be a formidable competitor to YOU
>>were you dropped off in their home range without anything but your teeth and
>>hands.
>>
>
>
> And here Mr. Cooper seems to switch his entire argument.
>
> BARD
And, by the way, WRONG again. Whatever gave you the idea that I was a *MR*?
I'd suggest, given your admirable interest in early hominids, you enroll in
an intro course. You'd enjoy it -- and also gain some knowledge to go along
with your arguments.
>
>
> C.R.Cooper = Caroline Cooper
>>>
>
>
|