November 28th, 2012, 01:59 AM
Excuse me and correct me if I venture to use biological words wrongly.
If selection pressure played role when human became bipedal, then it certainly made women vulnerable since that time in the past and most uncomfortable today. If human became bipedal some mya, since then female human had to sit while peeing making herself easy prey and at the same time her erect partner free to flee.
How is that possible?
That is why her partner kicks saber tooth tiger butt, instead of fleeing.
I'm sorry, but is this a question of whether or not sitting down to pee makes you more vulnerable to natural selection?
Originally Posted by Neverfly
That is why her partner kicks saber tooth tiger butt, instead of fleeing.
Does this mean he was powerful enough to protect her that time? Is it possible to say that human was dominant enough to protect his vulnerable woman from all predators before they became bipedal?
Bipedal theories are not considering this issue, I think.
I am sorry. Please explain your question.
It is not clear why you think humans squatting or standing to pee is a bigger problem than any other animal stopping to defecate.
Also, many evolutionary changes have advantages and disadvantages. It is not like it is designed.
You mean we are not bipedal? (I thought my knees were aching rather a lot.)
Your post seems to indicate that squatting to urinate would make someone more vulnerable to predators. I find this highly dubious and a little funny. I was just asking if that was indeed your question.I am sorry. Please explain your question.
It is not clear why you think humans squatting or standing to pee is a bigger problem than any other animal stopping to defecate.
Also, many evolutionary changes have advantages and disadvantages. It is not like it is designed.
You mean we are not bipedal? (I thought my knees were aching rather a lot.)
We are bipedal. There is no question.
Millions of years ago squatting human for peeing or defecating is unimaginable. If he was keeping away from predators, squatting position would be suicidal for him. Because till then he had not established his supremacy over the land of his choice the way he did in later age and established villages.
I am really really sorry. I have not studied this subject scientifically. It is only that I assumed we walked on our four limbs before we became bipedal. We were like any other animal or primate stopping on our four limbs or even walking while to piss or defecate. Animals don’t have to seriously attend that job when it happens to them.
It is more secure than drinking water. Drinking water takes them to dangerous place (pond or river) while peeing and defecating can be done with almost least care. Isn’t it possible that selection pressure to stand on hind limbs was so high that we lost our previous (animal or primate) posture.
Obviously not. Maybe you should do that and then ask some more sensible questions.
Well, obviously. As we now stand on two legs.Isn’t it possible that selection pressure to stand on hind limbs was so high that we lost our previous (animal or primate) posture.
Obviously not. Maybe you should do that and then ask some more sensible questions.
Well, obviously. As we now stand on two legs.Isn’t it possible that selection pressure to stand on hind limbs was so high that we lost our previous (animal or primate) posture.
I am sorry because I cannot debate like biologist. But my objection to the theories of bipedalism which ignore disadvantage of squatting posture while peeing or defecating is well thought.
I deliberately opened this thread to put above observation here. I am sure without finding answer for change of this posture, bipedalism theory cannot be completed and when someone will try to find answer, the theory will be quite different.
Your post seems to indicate that squatting to urinate would make someone more vulnerable to predators. I find this highly dubious and a little funny. I was just asking if that was indeed your question.I am sorry. Please explain your question.
Just imagine you are following your male partner in the jungle with predators. You will not halt to pee. Next impossible is you will not squat to pee.
And, just like any other animal, you will wait until it is safe. If you can't wait, you will keep running and just let it run down your legs. The same problem exists for all species, male and female.
Your question has 2 premises I would like to clarify:
1-Why does a bipedal female have to sit to pee?
2- And if that is so, how does that make one more vulnerable to predation?
(and so much so, that it overcomes any other advantages or disadvantages of a bipedal posture?)
{I can picture the Lion saying, "holy crap, I almost pounced on that fully erect human female, pheew, that was close, I would have been done for, better wait till she leans to pee, now she'll be easy prey"}
Thank you.
~ On another topic, Imagine in prehistoric times a heard of wilder beasts trekking across vast distances on their migration routes with their young which are able to walk from day one, and tribes of cavemen with their newborn wiggling in the grass saying in caveman language "Hey we've been waiting 3 days already, pick up the pace son, you have moved 1 inch in the past 2 days, how many more days do we have to wait till you walk at the same pace as an adult and start pulling your weight around here. Its not like we're going to pick you up to keep moving or something" ~
Last edited by icewendigo; November 28th, 2012 at 04:37 PM.
Seeing as women are already much more vulnerable than men by being either pregnant or carrying an infant or both, the marginal additional difficulty of squatting to defecate or urinate is not large in percentage terms.
plus its fairly easy for a fit person to go from squatting to standing or running very easy. so its not a major problem at all.
Yeah, pinch it off- then take off.
And, just like any other animal, you will wait until it is safe. If you can't wait, you will keep running and just let it run down your legs. The same problem exists for all species, male and female.
Just like any other animal we would have preferred to maintain our previous animal like posture. There was something really more worthy in becoming bipedal that human neglected this disadvantage. Bipedal theorists must think of reasons of loss of this trait in comparison to bipedalism.
Pregnant and carrying an infant or both. Would the female ever go through bipedal evolution without comparable advantage?
Humans are social creatures. We tend to troop together. You're being too simplistic in your question, here.
You're logic is that evolution must be incorrect because if squatting women were at risk, then we would not have survived.
From stopping to running human evolved as Squatting to running. Why? What advantages?
Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
Lions squat to do their business too. In fact, most mammals do. About the only things that can do it on the fly are fish and birds.
From stopping to running human evolved as Squatting to running. Why? What advantages?
Human bands. YES. We lived compulsorily in bands. Bipedalism theorists ignore this aspect.
First, the ability to use more and more of our fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination for carrying things and for weapons - while on the move.Bipedal theorists must think of reasons of loss of this trait in comparison to bipedalism.
Alice Roberts's series Origins of Us is a start. I recommend the whole series.
She works from the skull and spine in this beginning segment BBC Origins of Us Ep1: Bones ¦ 720p [1/4] - YouTube
Lions squat to do their business too. In fact, most mammals do. About the only things that can do it on the fly are fish and birds.
From stopping to running human evolved as Squatting to running. Why? What advantages?
That is to say we were as dominant as lions and ruled in our territory.
Survival ranks highest in evolution. When one species considers one’s motor skills and additional weapons to carry means it has established its dominance. It is furthering it’s survival chances.
[QUOTE=adelady;371271]Alice Roberts's series Origins of Us is a start. I recommend the whole series.
She works from the skull and spine in this beginning segment BBC Origins of Us Ep1: Bones ¦ 720p [1/4] - YouTube
Did Alice Roberts give any reason for loss of our previous trait in her ‘Origins of Us’?
If NO, it will be waste of time.
I haven't watched the whole thing for a while. From memory, she describes the various forced choices facing our not-quite-human ancestors - remember the upright stance was already there 6 million years ago in a not-at-all-human predecessor.Did Alice Roberts give any reason for loss of our previous trait in her ‘Origins of Us’?
Basically, the upright stance was already there and those creatures survived, thrived, then died out when they were displaced or replaced by other upright bipedal creatures. At any time in the last 6 million years, bipedal primates could have died out from "selection pressures" when faced with successive climate changes and other challenges from competitors and predators.
They didn't. Here we are.
It doesn't matter even if bipedalism incurs more disadvantages than the lower back pain and difficult childbirth everybody knows about. It's the balance between advantages and disadvantages that determines whether biological forms succeed or fail. Seeing as we (and our remoter, now deceased, relatives) have not only survived but thrived for 6 million years it looks as though that balance is in our favour.
I am not less sure about not-quite-human-ancestors dwelling here 6 million years ago with their upright stance. I am more sure that they hold their trait of four limb defecation along with their upright stance.
When they were replaced by upright bipedals, they also did not drop this trait.
This difference between them and us is we lost the trait while they urinated and defecated on all four limbs.
We must be having remains of them (6 mya) as evidence. I am sure the difference will be out on examination.
If you have a skull where the hole for the brainstem is at the bottom of the skull requiring a vertical spine, rather than towards the back as in chimp and other primate skulls both then and now you must have an upright stance not a head down, on-all-fours stance.I am not less sure about not-quite-human-ancestors dwelling here 6 million years ago with their upright stance.
There's no question about the upright stance - the only possible challenge would be to the dating of the sequence of fossil skulls. And that's pretty well established unless you have evidence otherwise.
I'm also confused about the focus on defecation and urination. Every animal has to do it. It's a universal requirement of biology. And we also know what happens when people and other animals are terrified. Read honest reports about the experiences of ordinary WW1 soldiers ordered to go 'over the top' out of the trenches. The 'smell of fear' is not a subtle aroma, it's the smell of hundreds of bowels emptying at the same time.
You are confused because no one pointed it out to you before that it is the bottom of vertical spine and not bottom of the scull that matters in this trait.
At the bottom of human vertebral column, a peculiar human sacrum and its sacral curve is most peculiar. I am sure it is not present in such shape in any quadrupedals or bipedals of present or 6 million years ago or in between.
Vertebral column - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loss of four limb urination trait is not yet included among the disadvantages considered.
That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
Hence even though we have succeeded as bipedals, we have not been able to theorize this evolution correctly.
What we might or might not "prefer" has nothing to do with it. Animals don't evolve through choice.
Your objection seems to be that you see a tiny change in the convenience of excreting waste as being a dominant factor. Do you have any evidence that this would have been a significant survival factor?
You need to look at all the benefits and disadvantages, and the relative weight of each. I'm sure there are much bigger anatomical problems caused by the change to upright stance. But these were obviously outweighed by the benefits.
Take another example: the changes that allow us to talk also mean we can choke to death when eating. Does that mean that speech should never have evolved? Obviously not.
Do you know that? Have you read every single paper on human evolution to be sure? Maybe someone looked at it and modelled the possible impact and decided it was irrelevant. Or maybe they just used a bit of common sense and dismissed it as a plausible factor.
There are obviously many advantages to being bipedal. The fact that you (think you) have found another teeny-weeny disadvantage does not negate all the advantages.That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
I'm ready to hazard a guess that I've experienced many more months of pregnancy than you have. I'm fully aware of one of the prime disadvantages of our spine structure. And the effects on a female's capacity to escape predators while pregnant or giving birth or feeding or otherwise carrying an infant are a much bigger concern than transitory moments for routine excretion.You are confused because no one pointed it out to you before that it is the bottom of vertical spine and not bottom of the scull that matters in this trait.
Predation is only one form of "selection pressure". From my limited reading on the subject, the death rate in childbirth for women giving birth to large brained infants through pelvises limited in size by upright posture (compare the pelvic opening of any other primate) is the main pressure on survival of a balanced population of human primates in the absence of professional medical care.
See wiki Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bipedalism
Anatomically the evolution of bipedalism has been accompanied by a large number of skeletal changes, not just to the legs and pelvis, but also to the vertebral column, feet and ankles, and skull. Perhaps the most significant changes are in the pelvic region, where the long downwards facing iliac blade was shortened and became wide as a requirement for keeping the center of gravity stable while walking.
The shortening and narrowing of the pelvis evolved as a requirement for bipedality and had significant effects on the process of human birth which is much more difficult in modern humans than in other primates.
The femur evolved into a slightly more angular position to move the center of gravity towards the geometric center of the body. The knee and ankle joints became increasingly robust to better support increased weight. Also in order to support the increased weight on each vertebra in the upright position the human vertebral column became S-shaped and the lumbar vertebrae became shorter and wider. In the feet the big toe moved into alignment with the other toes to help in forward locomotion. The arms and forearms shortened relative to the legs making it easier to run. The foramen magnum migrated under the skull and more anterior.
What we might or might not "prefer" has nothing to do with it. Animals don't evolve through choice.
Your objection seems to be that you see a tiny change in the convenience of excreting waste as being a dominant factor. Do you have any evidence that this would have been a significant survival factor?
You need to look at all the benefits and disadvantages, and the relative weight of each. I'm sure there are much bigger anatomical problems caused by the change to upright stance. But these were obviously outweighed by the benefits.
Take another example: the changes that allow us to talk also mean we can choke to death when eating. Does that mean that speech should never have evolved? Obviously not.
Nicely put.
Bigger the disadvantages, yet bigger the benefits. If bipedalism was such beneficial, the benefits should reflect in the bipedal theories which don’t.
Excreting openings closed in between thighs may be called tiny change or teeny-weeny disadvantage but was definitely going to create for humans hazardous hygienic problems. But it did not. Benefits were so big that we learned to take care of our hygiene.
Bipedal theorists are missing on the benefits.
Do you know that? Have you read every single paper on human evolution to be sure? Maybe someone looked at it and modelled the possible impact and decided it was irrelevant. Or maybe they just used a bit of common sense and dismissed it as a plausible factor.
There are obviously many advantages to being bipedal. The fact that you (think you) have found another teeny-weeny disadvantage does not negate all the advantages.That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
Traveling efficiency hypothesis, Postural feeding hypothesis, Provisioning model, Early bipedalism in homininae model, Warning display (Aposematic) model, Thermoregulatory model, Carrying models, Influence of water and aquatic food sources and Aquatic ape theory.
Above are 10 theories for bipedalism mentioned in Wikipedia. They all seem silly to me. I am not arrogant person. I am not hollow person.
But I can’t help it. I laugh at them. I have not read all of them but I know no theory has any substance in it.
Any of above theorists thinking of loss of standing excreting trait is unthinkable. All of them are unimaginative, may be due to burden of lot of accumulated information about the subject. They are not capable of seeing this.
<cough>
Who says women can't urinate standing up? I dispute any assertion that they cannot (having seen a previous girlfriend do so outdoors). Defecation in a standing position would be problematical equally for men and women.
What evidence do you have that early semi-bipeds needed to clean? Dont use modern humans, as we have cleaned for too many generations and as such are susceptible to problems they would not have been.Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
SO your problem with them is that they are not flashy enough for you?Do you know that? Have you read every single paper on human evolution to be sure? Maybe someone looked at it and modelled the possible impact and decided it was irrelevant. Or maybe they just used a bit of common sense and dismissed it as a plausible factor.
There are obviously many advantages to being bipedal. The fact that you (think you) have found another teeny-weeny disadvantage does not negate all the advantages.That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
Traveling efficiency hypothesis, Postural feeding hypothesis, Provisioning model, Early bipedalism in homininae model, Warning display (Aposematic) model, Thermoregulatory model, Carrying models, Influence of water and aquatic food sources and Aquatic ape theory.
Above are 10 theories for bipedalism mentioned in Wikipedia. They all seem silly to me. I am not arrogant person. I am not hollow person.
But I can’t help it. I laugh at them. I have not read all of them but I know no theory has any substance in it.
Any of above theorists thinking of loss of standing excreting trait is unthinkable. All of them are unimaginative, may be due to burden of lot of accumulated information about the subject. They are not capable of seeing this.
I don't understand this thread. One moment he says, "If bipedalism was such beneficial, the benefits should reflect in the bipedal theories which don’t. " "Bipedal theorists are missing on the benefits."
Then in the next post right after his own, he lists a series of benefits for bipedal animals... and laughs at them. I don't understand what's funny considering he previously said they simply don't exist.
It looks a lot like, "I've made up my mind; Don't confuse me with facts."
They are not flashy as well they are silly because they don’t solve squat excretion problem.
I explain to you.
Today we are bipedal and cannot imagine ourselves in any other posture.
But why did we become bipedal in the first place? You will see it is rarest of rare thing. No other quadruped species has undergone such big change.
Our body saves everything for our survival. If it expels something it must be more harmful if kept in our body for long. That is why quadrupeds have their excreting openings open to air. Exceptionally only we are undergone this change and have our openings closed in between thighs. We are the only species (human bands) that resides wherever we choose. Others leave our territory. And we are the only species that squats at leisure for excretion. This is to do with our achieved supremacy on this earth.
This is the benefit that bipedal theorists ignore. Unless they find connection between our supremacy and our erectness, no reasonable theory will come.
Firstly, you don't seem to have demonstrated that this is a significant problem in its own right. You started out saying that this was about vulnerability to predators. Why is this any more of a problem than limited abilities in fast running or climbing or other escape mechanisms. Let alone why it is a worse problem than the need to sleep - as one example of extreme vulnerability.they don’t solve squat excretion problem.
Secondly, even if the vulnerability to predation is accepted as a problem, you've not shown that the various advantages of upright stance don't counterbalance or outweigh that.
If the visual range and thinking power conferred by the larger brain in the upright skull give an advantage in avoiding predators in the first place, as an example of a possibility that occurred to me, then the increase in vulnerability due to brief events of squatting during excretion would need to be quite large to offset not meeting up with predators in the first place. And then there's the obvious, well-known advantage of intelligent cooperation in foraging and in hunting with weapons so that the chances of surviving long enough to reproduce because of better diet increase quite a lot. Is the occasional, brief, increase in this particular kind of vulnerability enough to offset that? (Remember we're not talking about living a long and comfortable life here, we're talking surviving long enough to reproduce and raise the young, that's all.)
Ken Fabos,
I agree after seeing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfL8-AgWBf0
Last edited by uday yadav; November 30th, 2012 at 01:17 AM.
I can only say this. Benefits and losses or disadvantages are attributed to species as one. But looking at human species as one is not justifiable as all benefits are gone to males while all disadvantages are being bourne by human females.
Particular disadvantages affect women pretty severely. But women also get the advantages of the large brained infant and social cooperation helps with the raising of infants that are so dependent for such a long time. One of the main things women get is 'grandmother' help - in some groups they're called 'the aunties'. Whatever you call them, the advantages of large brains allow for intelligent cooperation in all sorts of things, including feeding and raising children. Death and injury is a high price to pay for those who do, but there are lots of advantages for those who survive healthy.But looking at human species as one is not justifiable as all benefits are gone to males while all disadvantages are being bourne by human females.
What evidence do you have that early semi-bipeds needed to clean? Dont use modern humans, as we have cleaned for too many generations and as such are susceptible to problems they would not have been.Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
YES. I have evidence. Anthropologists have the remains of human like creatures who lived here 6 million years ago. Study them. You are anthropologist. You will find their excretion openings were open to air unlike humans.
And above all, the great good motherly heart that forgets all the wrong doings of her big brainy brat son and grandson.
NO they were not "open to the air", and it is clear that you ahve not looked either, and are just using the 6myo figure since it was brought up here.What evidence do you have that early semi-bipeds needed to clean? Dont use modern humans, as we have cleaned for too many generations and as such are susceptible to problems they would not have been.Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
YES. I have evidence. Anthropologists have the remains of human like creatures who lived here 6 million years ago. Study them. You are anthropologist. You will find their excretion openings were open to air unlike humans.
AND you did not address my specific question at all but tried to side track with unfounded assertions.
Uday, the onus is on you to demonstrate to the forum that squatting deification creates a species extinction level problem. Saying it is and then demanding that we debunk it does NOT fly here.
My opening sentence is, ‘Excuse me and correct me if I venture to use biological words wrongly.’ This is meant to express my ignorance of academic and theoretical knowledge of the subject. I am only curious reader of worldly subjects.
It doesn’t mean that new ideas concerning some subject will not strike to me. I speculated about our evolution from quadruped to biped. I saw chimps, gorillas; lemurs stand on their hind legs. I marked the difference between their and our erectness. I then found in Wikipedia the difference in human sacrum and sacral curve and theirs.
What I conclude here is not any discovery or nothing like that I ask credit for. I will not foolishly burden myself with something of which I know least.
I only marked the difference between us and all other (erect?) quadrupeds that I put here. If my observation is wrong it will be neglected and forgotten. It is for the experts to decide what to make of my observation. If my observation does not attract sincere biologist’s attention, then either observation is unworthy or ------.
For the excretion level problem, I don’t have more than what I wrote in post 43.
I am greatly honored by your guess. This is the most justified and dignified response from the great lady, Adlady to my attitude towards human species. I will show it to my wife and both sons.
Didn't females just urinate while wading in chest high water?
Please Please Please do not turn this into another AAH thread!
Not only human females but many males have agreed that they urinate while swimming or in your words while wading in chest deep/high water.
When it comes to urinating in water, chest high or ankle deep would not matter. All quadrupeds may be doing it. Going by anthropological records it is conclusively proven that it is not banned in their respective societies.
Cengelbrecht,
I can see Paleochneum is fed up of AAH. He is one of my best critics and clever biologist. Please don't theorize how otherwise vertebral straight sacrum evolved into sacral curve due to wading through chest high water.
To quote Michael Caine: Nevah. I understand you want it to just go away, but I'm not letting you go quietly into the night. I don't care if this concept is stigmatized, water as an agent in human evolution is still the most parsimonous idea today, whether people want it to be or not for some misleading social reason. (Copernicus, Copernicus, Copernicus ...)
Keeping with this scatological topic, I put it to you that human hygiene today is linked to water on the body. Humans prefer to bathe every single day of the year, and direct contact with bodily waste is heavily frowned upon. (While on YouTube there's a couple of videos with great apes doing something quite weird with their waste by any human standard.)
Not only human females but many males have agreed that they urinate while swimming or in your words while wading in chest deep/high water.
When it comes to urinating in water, chest high or ankle deep would not matter. All quadrupeds may be doing it. Going by anthropological records it is conclusively proven that it is not banned in their respective societies.
Cengelbrecht,
I can see Paleochneum is fed up of AAH. He is one of my best critics and clever biologist. Please don't theorize how otherwise vertebral straight sacrum evolved into sacral curve due to wading through chest high water.
How the hell can you not conclude, based on this splash-splash idea, that human waste was developed to be shed while wading in water, and as an exaptation when returning to terrestrialism, both genders now seek to lead the waste away from direct physical contact, females by "squatting"?
That's entirely cultural.Humans prefer to bathe every single day of the year
I doubt very much that people on the high plains of Tibet or on the edge of the Arctic would dream of such a thing. For a lot of European history, many people washed their faces and hands (not as often as you might expect) but it was considered peculiar, if not immoral, to get naked for washing or any other purpose.
In Arab countries, till recently they bathed weekly, only Jumma Ke Jumma. (Friday To Friday). Many of our Muslim brothers in India used to follow this ritual blindly as if instructions from Quran.
THIS IS NEW. Apply for patent.
Thank you for reminding me of my being humun. Do you always write like this?
Many times I am mistaken here due to my weak english. Will you please explain this in plain English?
I would say Europeans stopped bathing around the fall of the Roman empire in the 5th century, and didn't resume a benificial toilette standard untill the 19th century. Before that, there were thousands of private and public bath houses throughout the Roman empire. There were probably several reasons for stopping the bathing practice: Christianity made a breakthrough on the European continent, and because the Roman bath houses were unisex, meaning that men and women wandered naked amongst each other, that collided with the Judeo-Christian seperation of the genders. Also, when the Roman cities were sacked by outside marauders like the Goths and the Huns, the first thing destroyed were the aqueduct water supply and the hydraulics that fed the bath houses, because that broke the population opposition easily. Afterwards, the remains of the empire didn't have the ressources to rebuild these systems, and people stopped bathing because of it. I think there's a reason why this era is called "the dark middle ages" by European historians. Not exclusively because people stopped bathing, but also therefore.
And that's just pre-Christian Europe. Throughout the Middle East, there is a similar culture of bathing through all ages, whenever the ressources for it were available. There are rituals of ablution in both traditional Judaism (tevilah, netilat yadayim), Christianity (baptism, washing of feet, washing of the dead in Orthodox Christianity) and Islam (wudu, ghusl), all these aiming to a perceived cleansing of both body and spirit. And then there's the traditional washing in Hinduism, usually focusing on the river Ganges. And those are just the ones on top of my head.
And it's wrong that people don't wash themselves in the Arctic, at least to the knowledge I have of the Greenland hunter traditions (before Scandinavian influence). Quite the contrary.
A cultural lack of washing oneself I more or less perceive as a counterculture. The buddhist cultures in the Himalayas incorporating it do it as an abstinence, as part of the Buddhist concept of denouncing human desire. Why is washing perceived as a human desire? And how many human cultures of the world incorporate not washing themselves?
So no, I don't see bathing as a modern fad of the Western world. Quite the contrary. And there isn't a similar bathing behavior visible in any of the other great apes. From a biological perspective, bathing hygiene seems to be quite an intricate part of human nature.
I'm sorry that I can't leave you to this fantasy, that the semi-aquatic idea about human evolution is pseudoscience. That it's so widespread is a disgrace on modern science.
Wait. Wait. Forget pseudoscience. I heard moderator saying, ‘Move this thread to History.’
So let us stick to the subject. My topic is evolution of bipedalism and not scatology. If you want to discuss hygiene and scatology then open new thread.
You didn’t explain ---‘How the hell can you not conclude, based on this splash-splash idea, that human waste was developed to be shed while wading in water, and as an expatiation when returning to terrestrialism, both genders now seek to lead the waste away from direct physical contact, females by "squatting"?’
And what is 'splash-splash idea'?
Basically I'm saying, that we don't like to pee on ourselves. The other great apes, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, which are our nearest cousins in the tree of life, don't seem to care. When I'm talking about us possibly being semi-aquatic apes in some biological past (or present), being a bathing ape has the side effect (exaptation) of us finding it disgusting to have our own urine and feces in contact with our outside body, especially when we are dry. Again, the other great apes don't seem to care. I think most of you have peed in either the shower or the public pool, because having this waste rinsed off immediately is not perceived as disgusting wet as it is dry (other human apes might believe so, if you get caught doing it). At the same time, I think we can agree that feces is disgusting to us wet or dry.
Many times I am mistaken here due to my weak english. Will you please explain this in plain English?
When we "go to the bathroom", urinating and defecating while being dry, we seek as little direct contact to our body waste as possible, even washing our hands afterwards in many cultures to avoid any remnants. When urinating (that was the original question), in order to avoid that contact, men can be "creative" with a specific body part to lead the urine away from themselves, while women has to squat to achieve the same.
And yes, this is a disgusting topic for any healthy human being. And why is it disgusting to us, when it apparently isn't to the other great apes, at least to such an extent? Because it's our biological nature to be "hygienic" this way, as a side effect to our possible origin as a semi-aquatic ape. All I'm saying.
When I say 'splash-splash idea', I'm referring to the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis", as suggested by Alister Hardy, and championed by Elaine Morgan, Marc Verhaegen, Algis Kuliukas, etc.
And you're the one that brought up peeing.
We see it as part and parcel of our life in India. We don’t want to remain in contact with our body waste but we don’t feel anything disgusting in it. Today government spends more money on village level cleanliness. People are being taught cleanliness. Due to communication technology everything is changing fast along with hygienic culture.
Last fifty years hygien in India improved multifold. Young generation is particular about cleanliness. They clean themselves compulsorily in the morning and forget about it. They don’t see all the cleaning process as disgusting as in some other part of the world.
Does Aquatic Ape Theory explain evolution of human’s vertebral sacral curve?
There is no fossil record of any period spent in close proximity to water for extended periods of time......
Isn't the majority of the Hominin fossil archive dug up from then wet sediments? Fossils like Toumaï, Lucy and the Taung child were all preserved at then lake shores.
I'm not saying that it makes it a certain sign of them being semi-aquatic apes (wet sediments generally increase the chances of fossilization), but it hardly excludes it either.
And the Afar triangle in NE Africa, which has disclosed this multitude of Hominin fossils, that has time and time again been a flooded salt water archipelago all through human evolution, and geologists predicts it will be again in the future.
You do realize that no one is talking about them sea apes in this? No mermaids, no Aquaman, no humans-descend-from-dolphins. Just an African great ape with a habitat similar to the modern hippo, first mya in fresh water, then in salt water. (That's the current concensus, anyway.)
Citation needed for that.(That's the current consensus, anyway.)
Lots of citations.
A list of citations. Preferably from Nature or Science - but respectable journals for the discipline will be fine.
uday yadav,
No, her erect partner could not flee because he was too busy trying to pee himself so he also got eaten by his female partner, other females, literally eaten by predators, or figuratively maybe even by maybe 10% of the other males so inclined......her erect partner (was) free to flee. (parenthesis added)This evolution had to be pre-human because male and female chimps pee the same way as humans, maybe without directed urination or an erection
Last edited by forrest noble; December 4th, 2012 at 12:23 PM.
They are found in lacustrian/fluvian sediments because these settings are the most likely for preservation and fossilization. the sediments also produce zebras, giraffes, and hyaenas, does that mean they also were aquatic at that point?Isn't the majority of the Hominin fossil archive dug up from then wet sediments? Fossils like Toumaï, Lucy and the Taung child were all preserved at then lake shores.
I'm not saying that it makes it a certain sign of them being semi-aquatic apes (wet sediments generally increase the chances of fossilization), but it hardly excludes it either.
And the Afar triangle in NE Africa, which has disclosed this multitude of Hominin fossils, that has time and time again been a flooded salt water archipelago all through human evolution, and geologists predicts it will be again in the future.
You do realize that no one is talking about them sea apes in this? No mermaids, no Aquaman, no humans-descend-from-dolphins. Just an African great ape with a habitat similar to the modern hippo, first mya in fresh water, then in salt water. (That's the current concensus, anyway.)
No, that was my point.They are found in lacustrian/fluvian sediments because these settings are the most likely for preservation and fossilization. the sediments also produce zebras, giraffes, and hyaenas, does that mean they also were aquatic at that point?Isn't the majority of the Hominin fossil archive dug up from then wet sediments? Fossils like Toumaï, Lucy and the Taung child were all preserved at then lake shores.
I'm not saying that it makes it a certain sign of them being semi-aquatic apes (wet sediments generally increase the chances of fossilization), but it hardly excludes it either.
And the Afar triangle in NE Africa, which has disclosed this multitude of Hominin fossils, that has time and time again been a flooded salt water archipelago all through human evolution, and geologists predicts it will be again in the future.
You do realize that no one is talking about them sea apes in this? No mermaids, no Aquaman, no humans-descend-from-dolphins. Just an African great ape with a habitat similar to the modern hippo, first mya in fresh water, then in salt water. (That's the current concensus, anyway.)
Chiefly the consensus of this.
And this list too, I suppose.
(Edit: And why the hell not this one?)
Last edited by CEngelbrecht; December 3rd, 2012 at 04:10 AM.
This evolution is not pre-human. Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us. We evolved to be more progressive or more successful and chimpanzees as being most similar to us blindly followed on our path. When we dominated the whole world, we were always divided and so were always short of land. Evolution cheated on chimpanzees. They were not dominant as us so they didn’t have any land, that they could hold and prosper on like us.
It is very possible that their sacrum might have evolved a little curved.
utter nonsense, with no support in the physical evidence at all.
This evolution is not pre-human. Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us. We evolved to be more progressive or more successful and chimpanzees as being most similar to us blindly followed on our path. When we dominated the whole world, we were always divided and so were always short of land. Evolution cheated on chimpanzees. They were not dominant as us so they didn’t have any land, that they could hold and prosper on like us.
It is very possible that their sacrum might have evolved a little curved.
I have found very important information on wiki, that scraps all present theories, hypothesis and speculations about human bipedalism unless they are founded on this information.
Differences in the Sacrum of the Male and Female.—"In the female the sacrum is shorter and wider than in the male; the lower half forms a greater angle with the upper; the upper half is nearly straight, the lower half presenting the greatest amount of curvature. The bone is also directed more obliquely backward; this increases the size of the pelvic cavity and renders the sacrovertebral angle more prominent. In the male the curvature is more evenly distributed over the whole length of the bone, and is altogether greater than in the female."
This (difference in sacrul curvature) means males and females evolved bipedal but little differently. Does it not?
If yes, no bipedalism theory has provided reason for this difference.
No it shows that there is a difference needed when it comes to male and females eg, child birth.
And HOW do you know the present theories have not accounted for it? Please present a list of the peer reviewed papers on bipedal evolution that you have read and understand.
utter nonsense, with no support in the physical evidence at all.[/QUOTE]
For evidence we don’t have to go back million years back. It is less than 100K ago. So lot of evidence will be found shortly. I am sure.
Why are you sure????
No it shows that there is a difference needed when it comes to male and females eg, child birth.
And HOW do you know the present theories have not accounted for it? Please present a list of the peer reviewed papers on bipedal evolution that you have read and understand.
Then do you agree that only those theories with mention of sacral curvature will remain?
I did not read all peer reviewed papers on bipedal evolution. Had I read them, I wouldn’t have possibly understood all of them. That is why I did a trick in my post 74.
I wrote, ‘Every bipedal theory will be scraped unless founded on the information (of sacral curvature).'
Last edited by uday yadav; December 3rd, 2012 at 12:42 PM.
You think so. I am not satisfied with this answer. I am short of explanation and lack of exact words, but there was definitely much more involved when human race tried to stand up.
HAVE you read any actual peer reviewed papers on human bipedal evolution??No it shows that there is a difference needed when it comes to male and females eg, child birth.
And HOW do you know the present theories have not accounted for it? Please present a list of the peer reviewed papers on bipedal evolution that you have read and understand.
Then do you agree that only those theories with mention of sacral curvature will remain?
I did not read all peer reviewed papers on bipedal evolution. Had I read them, I wouldn’t have possibly understood all of them. That is why I did a trick in my post 74.
I wrote, ‘Every bipedal theory will be scraped unless founded on the information (of sacral curvature).'
Why are you compelling me to come out with my secret?
NO. I read here for the first time about peer reviewed papers.
I mistook these papers for hypothesis and theories found on net. I should have given thought to their higher status in the eyes of sincere truth followers.
Paleochneum,
One simple question.
Is sacral curvature reference necessary for bipedal hypothesis?
utter nonsense, with no support in the physical evidence at all.
This evolution is not pre-human. Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us. We evolved to be more progressive or more successful and chimpanzees as being most similar to us blindly followed on our path. When we dominated the whole world, we were always divided and so were always short of land. Evolution cheated on chimpanzees. They were not dominant as us so they didn’t have any land, that they could hold and prosper on like us.
It is very possible that their sacrum might have evolved a little curved.
Chimpanzee microbiome variation is like ours
Tue, 2012-11-13 23:55 -- John Hawks
A new paper by Andrew Moeller and colleagues surveys the variation in species composition of gut microbiomes in the chimpanzees from Gombe, Tanzania [1]. They found that chimpanzees have a very similar pattern of variation to that found in human populations. Here's their mini-review of the human variation in "enterotypes":
The gut microbial communities in contemporary populations of humans have been partitioned into three clusters, termed ‘enterotypes’, each of which is characterized by a distinct set of overrepresented bacterial genera. Whereas initially no relationship was detected between enterotypes and specific features of the host (such as age, health status, body morphotype, provenance or gender), recent work has revealed associations between enterotype and long-term diet: the Bacteroides-dominant enterotype is prevalent in individuals whose diets are high in animal fat and protein, whereas the Prevotella-dominant enterotype prevails in individuals with high-carbohydrate diets.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/microbiome/chimpanzee-microbiome-moeller-2012.html
Something went wrong while pasting so deleted the post and reposted below.
Last edited by uday yadav; December 4th, 2012 at 03:58 AM.
utter nonsense, with no support in the physical evidence at all.
This evolution is not pre-human. Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us. We evolved to be more progressive or more successful and chimpanzees as being most similar to us blindly followed on our path. When we dominated the whole world, we were always divided and so were always short of land. Evolution cheated on chimpanzees. They were not dominant as us so they didn’t have any land, that they could hold and prosper on like us.
It is very possible that their sacrum might have evolved a little curved.
Chimpanzee microbiome variation is like ours
Tue, 2012-11-13 23:55 -- John Hawks
A new paper by Andrew Moeller and colleagues surveys the variation in species composition of gut microbiomes in the chimpanzees from Gombe, Tanzania [1]. They found that chimpanzees have a very similar pattern of variation to that found in human populations. Here's their mini-review of the human variation in "enterotypes":
The gut microbial communities in contemporary populations of humans have been partitioned into three clusters, termed ‘enterotypes’, each of which is characterized by a distinct set of overrepresented bacterial genera. Whereas initially no relationship was detected between enterotypes and specific features of the host (such as age, health status, body morphotype, provenance or gender), recent work has revealed associations between enterotype and long-term diet: the Bacteroides-dominant enterotype is prevalent in individuals whose diets are high in animal fat and protein, whereas the Prevotella-dominant enterotype prevails in individuals with high-carbohydrate diets.
Chimpanzee microbiome variation is like ours | john hawks weblog
Not as far as I know. Our predecessors moved out of the forests (or the forests contracted) and learned to survive on the savannah and other more open environments. Eventually we were able to survive everywhere except Antarctica.Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us.
The chimpanzees are still in forests.
Chimpanzees and humans harbour compositionally similar gut enterotypes
Howard Ochman
"Microbes inhabiting the human gastrointestinal tract tend to adopt one of three characteristic community structures, called ‘enterotypes’, each of which is overrepresented by a distinct set of bacterial genera. Here we report that the gut microbiotae of chimpanzees also assort into enterotypes and that these chimpanzee enterotypes are compositionally analogous to those of humans. Through the analysis of longitudinal samples, we show that the microbial signatures of the enterotypes are stable over time, but that individual hosts switch between enterotypes over periods longer than a year. These results support the hypothesis that enterotypic variation was present in populations of great apes before the divergence of humans and chimpanzees."
Though according to the author Howard Ochman, enterotypic variation was present in populations of great apes, above result refers only to humans and chimpanzees.
So until such results mentioning other great apes, are produced it can be safely speculated, that even after divergence, chimpanzees somehow could share in human diet, might be by staying on the outskirts of human territory.
I suspect these gut enterotypes in humans and chimpanzees are related to the diet of food grains like pre-agriculture corn, wheat etc.
So the hundreds of human groups. Till now they were afraid to be in contact with us.
Due to discovery of agriculture humans suddenly became owner of crops.
This research is very interesting and potentially important for understanding some human diseases. But how on Earth is it relevant to this thread?
What! Are we straying into science fiction now?
Could you clarify what that means, please.Due to discovery of agriculture humans suddenly became owner of crops.
There's a huge problem here. According to Philip Tobias since the mid 90's, the savannah aspect of human bipedalism is more or less dead. The early hominids in both South and East Africa are all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals, not grassland ones. So at least human bipedalism somehow emerged in an arboreal setting. And yes, the next question is why the hell bipedalism emerged in early arboreal humans, and not in chimps, gorillas (knuckle walkers) and orangutans (tree climber)?
Last edited by CEngelbrecht; December 9th, 2012 at 02:35 AM.
This research is very interesting and potentially important for understanding some human diseases. But how on Earth is it relevant to this thread?
Forrest noble found similar peeing trait in male and female chimps and humans. Based on that, subject got carried away. But the subject is new and should be debated here or on new thread.
Chimpanzees had long lasting access of high-carbohydrate food comparable to humans is big discovery. This might be from pre- agriculture grains of cereal plants.
Chimp FacepalmThis research is very interesting and potentially important for understanding some human diseases. But how on Earth is it relevant to this thread?
Forrest noble found similar peeing trait in male and female chimps and humans. Based on that, subject got carried away. But the subject is new and should be debated here or on new thread.
Chimpanzees had long lasting access of high-carbohydrate food comparable to humans is big discovery. This might be from pre- agriculture grains of cereal plants.
When a blonde facepalm just isn't enough
CEngelbrechtSavannah is not a prairie-like expanse open to the horizon with nothing to see but grass. Savannahs have trees with enough opening in the canopies to allow light in for grasses to grow, open woodlands rather than dense forests. There are apparently some people who use it for open grassland with no trees, but I've never seen or heard such usage.The early hominids in both South and East Africa are all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals, not grassland ones.
uday yadav,
(quote by Strange)yes, I do think there might be an intellectual side of this proposal but it has been hard for me to be drawn toward it.Forrest noble found similar peeing trait in male and female chimps and humans. Based on that, subject got carried away. But the subject is new and should be debated here or on new thread.
OK, I will try to be serious. From your opening OP.
My opinion is that human women may have had a slight disadvantage during urination during the inception of the human species, but both genders would have had the same disadvantage during defecation, concerning predation. Chimps, on the other hand, probably payed less attention to cleanliness as in your conjecture. Seriously, this minuscule disadvantage of the sexes should have played generally no consequence in the evolution of our species, in my opinion. Not that I want to end this dialog and spoil the "fun" but what sayeth thou uday yadev?
What's up in Mumbai? I Expect to be there in 2013 for business and charitable reasons.
I seriously would like to hear much more from you my friend, but this thread, I believe, is far from your best "shot." But saying this first, I would like to say that it has been great fun for me concerning non-serious comments. But I hope you have had fun too.
I will comment no more on this thread and seriously await your next conjecture. But if your next conjecture is not more thought out conjecture than this one, I will first expect to have my fun like I did in this thread, before I become more serious and somewhat serious and humble (maybe)
with best regards, Forrest Noble
Last edited by forrest noble; December 5th, 2012 at 02:17 PM.
I dunno, does the baobab count as a tree?
Sky scrapers of the ancient days. No wonder we emulate it in the city.
you have not shown that this sexually dimorphic trait is.
Forrest Noble,
I am flattered. I really didn’t believe someone would seriously read my posts. Thank you very much.
The new subject I mentioned, concerned common rich-carbohydrate diet of chimps and humans.
Carbohydrate diet comes from grains of cereal plants. Wheat, barley, corn etc.
Human started agriculture 10 000 years ago so he would not share the outcome with chimps. This means both were used to rich-carbohydrate prior to agriculture.
It leads us to assume that prior to domestication, cereal grains naturally grew on the land that was not exclusively in the possession of humans. Chimps somehow managed to create access to rich-carbohydrate food. At the least, chimps were living on the outskirts of human dominated territory.
Evolution of prevotella enterotype1, 2 and 3 in chimp's gut in high abundance means from the time of evolution of densely packed ears of grains, humans and chimps shared them as food.
The evolution of packed ears of grains (bigger seeds) cannot be more than 100K old.
In my view, bipedal evolution is revolutionary. No minuscule disadvantage or tiny, teeny-weeny ideas like peeing etc had anything to do with bipedalism. I started by peeing problem to show that bipedal reasons were far greater than the theorists think of.
Bipedal evolution was do or die. There was no get back, turn and run away quadrupedally. Human stood his ground. Disadvantage of leaving the battle field was not less severe than die fighting.
Win the battle and live or lose the battle and die. These was no other alternative socially evolved as these battles between two human bands were first in human history.
Evolution of sacral curvature evidently points to severity of reason. It didn't evolve to create peeing trait.
I know my above incomplete speculation will not be taken for debate but possibly will be thrown away unattended.
What! Are we straying into science fiction now?
Hundreds of tribal groups live in jungles, away from thick human population. They don’t cultivate. They are driven away or they are defeated and had ran away from winner human societies.
They could not hold enough piece of land to cultivate on. That is why they have abandoned their previous diet rich in carbohydrates and are living on jungle products and small preys.
Evidence?
Prevotella enterotype1, 2 and 3 in their gut.
you have not shown that this sexually dimorphic trait is.
If I fail to show whatever you meant by above statement, will the sacral curvature disappear/devolve?
Please do not try to be this clueless. No matter what happens the curve will be there. You have yet to so relevance to bipedal evolution though.you have not shown that this sexually dimorphic trait is.
If I fail to show whatever you meant by above statement, will the sacral curvature disappear/devolve?
| « Help needed for microscope novice | weird thought, isnt it? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
