|
|
Re: Orangs as Closest
Bob Keeter (b_keeter@owens.ridgecrest.ca.is)
Sat, 3 Aug 1996 01:37:06 GMT
mof@prophet.pharm.pitt.edu (Matthew O. Fraser) wrote:
>In article <DvHM1s.8Lv@ridgecrest.ca.us>, Bob Keeter
><b_keeter@owens.ridgecrest.ca.is> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>>
>> Absolutely! It was that set of Devonian footprints, exactly matching
>> a modern orang's, bipedally running up to the edge of a cliff and
>> leaping boldly into the lake for liesurely swim that gave it all away!
>>
>> 8-)))))) Hehehe
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I take it that you don't think that it's a tenable hypothesis. :)
>
I do have my doubts! I just couldnt resist! ! ! Actually some of the
stuff I see floating around this and a couple of other potentially very
interesting newsgroups just sort of irques me. I hope that I wasnt picking
too hard at you (after all Im just an interested amateur). But you have to
admit that when a group of reasonably well educated and intelligent people
can argue for months on end over a hypothesis that the first hominids were
aquatic apes, or arguing about supposed humanoid fossils found in coal veins,
or arguing about exactly what advantage bipedal stance offers, it gives reason
to chuckle!
>You mention bipedalism. What if the split occured prior to bipedality?
>What if the Orang ancestry remained/became more specialized for arboreal
>existance? Chimps aren't bipedal either. While they can do it (so can
>Orangs), their pelves are not in any way designed for it.
>
Seriously, while neither Chimps nor Orangs have the machinery to run around
too much on "all two", I think that the upper body differences between the
chimp and orang and humanoids marks the real lines of descent. Check out
the arms and shoulders of the orang in comparison to humans and you'll
see that there is some real evolutionary distance there! Quite a bit less
when compared to a chimp I think.
>
>I'm not up on the recent findings, haven't really been up on this stuff
>for around 10 years now. Most of my "current" info comes from National
>Geographic and documentaries. That's why I'm pretty excited about this
>NG.
>
Better than reading some of the drivel that passes for science in some
circles!
>
>Back to the question at hand. Closest extant relatives do not *have* to
>outwardly look the most like us, they could have diverged after the split,
>while more distant relatives may have maintained a more overall similar
>morphological suite of characteristics, the "primitive" traits. Kind of
>like 5 digits of the generalized skeleton. While the closer relatives may
>share another set of derived traits. Finally each unique group has it's
>own derived characters. Maybe this is the case for the hominid/Pan/Pongo
>comparison.
>
>Like I said, I'm not saying I know the answer, here. That's why I asked
>the question. I'll put you down for a "No Way".
>
Yup. "No way" is about right 8-))
>
>Thanks for the laugh!
>
You're most welcome! I keep getting the feeling that a lot of these
newsgroups could use a yuck or two!
Later my friend!
Regards
bk
|