Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 146
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Selection Pressure and Bipedalism

  1. #1 Selection Pressure and Bipedalism 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    That is why her partner kicks saber tooth tiger butt, instead of fleeing.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I'm sorry, but is this a question of whether or not sitting down to pee makes you more vulnerable to natural selection?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I'm sorry, but is this a question of whether or not sitting down to pee makes you more vulnerable to natural selection?
    I am sorry. Please explain your question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Bipedal theories are not considering this issue, I think. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    You mean we are not bipedal? (I thought my knees were aching rather a lot.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I'm sorry, but is this a question of whether or not sitting down to pee makes you more vulnerable to natural selection?
    I am sorry. Please explain your question.
    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.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Bipedal theories are not considering this issue, I think. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    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 donít 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. Isnít it possible that selection pressure to stand on hind limbs was so high that we lost our previous (animal or primate) posture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    I am really really sorry. I have not studied this subject scientifically.
    Obviously not. Maybe you should do that and then ask some more sensible questions.

    Isn’t it possible that selection pressure to stand on hind limbs was so high that we lost our previous (animal or primate) posture.
    Well, obviously. As we now stand on two legs.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    I am really really sorry. I have not studied this subject scientifically.
    Obviously not. Maybe you should do that and then ask some more sensible questions.

    Isnít it possible that selection pressure to stand on hind limbs was so high that we lost our previous (animal or primate) posture.
    Well, obviously. As we now stand on two legs.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I'm sorry, but is this a question of whether or not sitting down to pee makes you more vulnerable to natural selection?
    I am sorry. Please explain your question.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    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 03:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    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.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Yeah, pinch it off- then take off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    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.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    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.

    Pregnant and carrying an infant or both. Would the female ever go through bipedal evolution without comparable advantage?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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.

    From stopping to running human evolved as Squatting to running. Why? What advantages?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Yeah, pinch it off- then take off.
    Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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.

    From stopping to running human evolved as Squatting to running. Why? What advantages?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Humans are social creatures. We tend to troop together.

    Human bands. YES. We lived compulsorily in bands. Bipedalism theorists ignore this aspect.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Bipedal theorists must think of reasons of loss of this trait in comparison to bipedalism.
    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.

    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
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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.

    From stopping to running human evolved as Squatting to running. Why? What advantages?
    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.

    That is to say we were as dominant as lions and ruled in our territory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Bipedal theorists must think of reasons of loss of this trait in comparison to bipedalism.
    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.

    Survival ranks highest in evolution. When one species considers oneís motor skills and additional weapons to carry means it has established its dominance. It is furthering itís survival chances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    [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 ĎOrigins of Usí?

    If NO, it will be waste of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Did Alice Roberts give any reason for loss of our previous trait in her ‘Origins of Us’?
    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.

    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Did Alice Roberts give any reason for loss of our previous trait in her ĎOrigins of Usí?
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I am not less sure about not-quite-human-ancestors dwelling here 6 million years ago with their upright stance.
    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.

    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I am not less sure about not-quite-human-ancestors dwelling here 6 million years ago with their upright stance.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    [Just like any other animal we would have preferred to maintain our previous animal like posture.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Loss of four limb urination trait is not yet included among the disadvantages considered.
    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.

    That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    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.
    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.

    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    [Just like any other animal we would have preferred to maintain our previous animal like posture.
    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 donít.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Loss of four limb urination trait is not yet included among the disadvantages considered.
    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.

    That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
    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.

    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 canít 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    They all seem silly to me. I am not arrogant person.
    <cough>
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Yeah, pinch it off- then take off.
    Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
    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.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Loss of four limb urination trait is not yet included among the disadvantages considered.
    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.

    That is why we are short of some yet unseen advantage to counterbalance this loss of trait against.
    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.

    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.
    SO your problem with them is that they are not flashy enough for you?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    SO your problem with them is that they are not flashy enough for you?

    They are not flashy as well they are silly because they donít solve squat excretion problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I don't understand this thread. One moment he says, "If bipedalism was such beneficial, the benefits should reflect in the bipedal theories which donít. " "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."

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    they don’t solve squat excretion problem.
    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.

    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.)
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378

    Ken Fabos,

    I agree after seeing this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfL8-AgWBf0
    Last edited by uday yadav; November 30th, 2012 at 12:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Yeah, pinch it off- then take off.
    Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
    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.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    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.

    And above all, the great good motherly heart that forgets all the wrong doings of her big brainy brat son and grandson.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Yeah, pinch it off- then take off.
    Don't forget to clean it in your emergency.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    AND you did not address my specific question at all but tried to side track with unfounded assertions.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    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.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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, ĎExcuse me and correct me if I venture to use biological words wrongly.í This is meant to express my ignorance of academic and theoretical knowledge of the subject. I am only curious reader of worldly subjects.

    It doesnít 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 biologistís attention, then either observation is unworthy or ------.

    For the excretion level problem, I donít have more than what I wrote in post 43.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    I'm ready to hazard a guess that I've experienced many more months of pregnancy than you have.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Didn't females just urinate while wading in chest high water?
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Please Please Please do not turn this into another AAH thread!
    adelady likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Didn't females just urinate while wading in chest high water?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Please Please Please do not turn this into another AAH thread!
    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 ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Didn't females just urinate while wading in chest high water?

    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.
    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.)
    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"?
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Humans prefer to bathe every single day of the year
    That's entirely cultural.

    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Keeping with this scatological topic, I put it to you that human hygiene today is linked to water on the body.
    THIS IS NEW. Apply for patent.

    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Humans prefer to bathe every single day of the year, and direct contact with bodily waste is heavily frowned upon.
    Thank you for reminding me of my being humun. Do you always write like this?


    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    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"?
    Many times I am mistaken here due to my weak english. Will you please explain this in plain English?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    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.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    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, ĎMove this thread to History.í

    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 didnít explain ---ĎHow 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"?í

    And what is 'splash-splash idea'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post


    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    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"?
    Many times I am mistaken here due to my weak english. Will you please explain this in plain English?
    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.
    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.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    We see it as part and parcel of our life in India. We donít want to remain in contact with our body waste but we donít 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 donít see all the cleaning process as disgusting as in some other part of the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    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.

    Does Aquatic Ape Theory explain evolution of humanís vertebral sacral curve?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    There is no fossil record of any period spent in close proximity to water for extended periods of time......
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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 ToumaÔ, 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.)
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    (That's the current consensus, anyway.)
    Citation needed for that.

    Lots of citations.

    A list of citations. Preferably from Nature or Science - but respectable journals for the discipline will be fine.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    uday yadav,

    ......her erect partner (was) free to flee. (parenthesis added)
    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 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 11:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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 ToumaÔ, 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.)
    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?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    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 ToumaÔ, 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.)
    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?
    No, that was my point.


    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    (That's the current consensus, anyway.)
    Citation needed for that.

    Lots of citations.

    A list of citations. Preferably from Nature or Science - but respectable journals for the discipline will be fine.
    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 03:10 AM.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    uday yadav,

    This evolution had to be pre-human because male and female chimps pee the same way as humans, maybe without directed urination.

    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 didnít 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    uday yadav,

    This evolution had to be pre-human because male and female chimps pee the same way as humans, maybe without directed urination.

    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.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    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.ó"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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    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.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    [
    utter nonsense, with no support in the physical evidence at all.[/QUOTE]


    For evidence we donít have to go back million years back. It is less than 100K ago. So lot of evidence will be found shortly. I am sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Why are you sure????
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    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.

    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 11:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No it shows that there is a difference needed when it comes to male and females eg, child birth.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    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.

    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).'
    HAVE you read any actual peer reviewed papers on human bipedal evolution??
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    [

    HAVE you read any actual peer reviewed papers on human bipedal evolution??

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Paleochneum,


    One simple question.


    Is sacral curvature reference necessary for bipedal hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    uday yadav,

    This evolution had to be pre-human because male and female chimps pee the same way as humans, maybe without directed urination.

    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 didnít 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.

    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 Ďenterotypesí, 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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Something went wrong while pasting so deleted the post and reposted below.
    Last edited by uday yadav; December 4th, 2012 at 02:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    uday yadav,

    This evolution had to be pre-human because male and female chimps pee the same way as humans, maybe without directed urination.

    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 didnít 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.

    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 Ďenterotypesí, 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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us.
    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.

    The chimpanzees are still in forests.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Though we separated some mya from chimpanzees, they stayed near us always. They always tried to imitate us.
    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.

    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 Ďenterotypesí, 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post

    The chimpanzees are still in forests.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,539
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Chimpanzees and humans harbour compositionally similar gut enterotypes
    This research is very interesting and potentially important for understanding some human diseases. But how on Earth is it relevant to this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    So the hundreds of human groups. Till now they were afraid to be in contact with us.
    What! Are we straying into science fiction now?

    Due to discovery of agriculture humans suddenly became owner of crops.
    Could you clarify what that means, please.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    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.

    The chimpanzees are still in forests.
    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 01:35 AM.
    "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. (History) shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources."
    - Carl Sagan, 1980


    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Chimpanzees and humans harbour compositionally similar gut enterotypes
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Chimpanzees and humans harbour compositionally similar gut enterotypes
    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 Facepalm

    When a blonde facepalm just isn't enough
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    CEngelbrecht
    The early hominids in both South and East Africa are all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals, not grassland ones.
    Savannah 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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    uday yadav,

    (quote by Strange)
    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.
    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.

    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 01:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I dunno, does the baobab count as a tree?
    Sky scrapers of the ancient days. No wonder we emulate it in the city.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Paleochneum,


    One simple question.


    Is sacral curvature reference necessary for bipedal hypothesis?
    you have not shown that this sexually dimorphic trait is.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    uday yadav,

    with best regards, Forrest Noble

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    So the hundreds of human groups. Till now they were afraid to be in contact with us.
    What! Are we straying into science fiction now?

    Hundreds of tribal groups live in jungles, away from thick human population. They donít 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Paleochneum,


    One simple question.


    Is sacral curvature reference necessary for bipedal hypothesis?
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Paleochneum,


    One simple question.


    Is sacral curvature reference necessary for bipedal hypothesis?
    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.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 5th, 2010, 05:53 AM
  2. Kin Selection and Sexual Selection
    By Golkarian in forum Biology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2010, 04:23 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 20th, 2009, 04:28 PM
  4. Evolution of Bipedalism
    By AkirA in forum Biology
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: February 21st, 2009, 04:48 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 18th, 2008, 07:16 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •