nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Australopithecines had the wanderlust?

steddyeddy

Recently I came across a paper presented by Matthew Tocheri In which he deals with the wrist bones of Homo floresiensis. The conclusion he came to is that the wrists most resemble those of an australopithecine. Several other Palaeontologists have put forward the idea that flores man's ancestor was most likely a small bodied ancesstor and not homo erectus.

Now if this is true it would mean that australopithecines were the first to leave africa and evolve elsewhere. I know this has huge implications and Im not buying it wholesale because of one paper but I would like to get the opinions of the good people here! So any thoughts anybody?

Heres the paper:

http://doc.rero.ch/lm.php?url=1000,43,39,20091210003653-ZZ/PAL_E2855.pdf

Find more posts tagged with

evolution

homo

hominin

wrist

hominid

australopithecus

floresiensis

Quick Links

Comments

Adam Khor

I am not an expert on hominins, so I would like to ask a question, see if any of you can answer it. Why would Australopithecines leaving Africa be particularly surprising? We know many other primates left Africa too, and some of them weren´t even as well adapted to traveling long distances as Australopithecines were.
So, why the surprise?

rccaulfield

Adam Khor wrote: »

I am not an expert on hominins, so I would like to ask a question, see if any of you can answer it. Why would Australopithecines leaving Africa be particularly surprising? We know many other primates left Africa too, and some of them weren´t even as well adapted to traveling long distances as Australopithecines were.
So, why the surprise?

No surprise at all, established theory i thought!

steddyeddy

Homo erectus or the more primitive homo georgicus are often thought of the first of mans ancestors to leave africa. A lot of scientists arent happy with the suggestion that an australopithecine left africa first although It makes sense. Homo erectus was thought to be the ancestor to flores man thats why this is so contraversial.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

A lot of scientists arent happy with the suggestion that an australopithecine left africa first although It makes sense.

Sometimes I believe scientists are lazy. They seem to recoil in dread at the thought of re-writing what they thought they knew already. Archaeopteryx, for example, is still considered to be "the earliest bird" by pretty much everyone, despite its having more in common with dromeosaurs (raptors) than with actual birds.
If you go to Wikipedia you will find it classiffied as Aves, Archaeopterygiformes, Archaeopterygidae. Scientists are very comfortable knowing that there IS an "earliest bird" and that they don`t have to start looking for the first bird once again.

I think, tho, that in a recent paper they finally re-classiffied Archie as an unenlagiine dromeosaur (that is, a close relative to Rahonavis, Unenlagia and the gigantic Austroraptor). Seems that no one paid much attention, tho.

My point is that new ideas shouldn`t be rejected just because they don`t fit in a neat, apparently solved puzzle.

Galvasean

Where's Wibbs anyway?

steddyeddy

Galvasean wrote: »

Where's Wibbs anyway?

I know I was wondering that too. Hes being fashionably late maybe!!

Galvasean

Must be on one of his Wanderlusts....

Wibbs

Went walkabout...

I dunno, I think scientifically the flores Hobbit is a headache looking for an aspirin, an outlier looking for an explanation, any explanation at the moment.

There are a few issues with the finds. The advanced stone toolkit found with them for a start. If these lithics are reliably theirs it throws a major spanner in the works. What with their small brains an all. They're certainly more sophisticated than Erectus in Asia thus found. They're more like late mousterian/Neandertal in design. Then there's where they are found. Flores has been cut off by sea for many millions of years. So they had to make it there. This requires some level of seafaring in the original erectus(IMHO) populations. Not unlikely as one might think if potential discoveries on Crete are anything to go by; http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2591 *

The australopithecine link? Looking at the bones with my very inexpert eye, I would have concluded that the resemblance to australopithecine is less down to any direct familial link but more down to changes in the bones wrought by island dwarfism. They resemble erectus more than australopithecines IMHO. Even so an Erectus with an advanced lithic technology and the ability to put to sea and find new habitats out of sight of the land they set out from is pretty damned amazing.

As for astros moving out of Africa? Possible alright. One theory holds that many of the earlier great apes first left Africa moved into Eurasia and then moved back and forth giving us the African great apes and the Orangs of Asia. I suspect they would need a far more stable food corridor than hominids as hominids have more habitation and diet adaptations. One reason they might struggle without such a corridor is defo diet. Astros seemed to be much more vegetarian than homos. Carnivores(omnivores) and scavengers have one distinct advantage. Pretty much boils down to "is it alive/are vultures eating that Ted?" "yep". "Right so Ted we can eat that then". That dietary change is much less reliant on specialised foods or seasons. Erectus was a carnivore/scavenger so would be easier at a distinct advantage of being first.

aside * those Cretan tools raised a thought/theory/madness I've always had about humans closer to home in Ireland. People are looking for and have always looked for flint tools. It's synonymous with the "stone age"(though they defo used a lot of wood tools). Natural flint is rare in Ireland, so any early populations that made it here(erectus/heidelbergensis made it to the UK after all) would likely use other local stones rather than flint. This goes double for earlier hominids as they didn't trade as far as they can tell and were very local when it came to lithic material. It goes triple when you consider that the only likely place to find earlier hominids in Ireland is in the south west where the ice didn't bugger the place too badly and there's no flint at all in that region. My theory is that maybe there are examples of such tools not made from flint, possibly made by erectus or Neandertals laying around and being missed as they're not what we're looking for. /aside

Wibbs

.... OK I'm thinking of one more slight if a little "out there"* possibility... What if alongside the great ape evolution in Africa that gave rise to African hominids there was another great ape evolution local to Asia that also gave rise to proto hominids? Asian ones. An Asian australopithecine ish type Ape**. I don't see why not as far as environment and selective pressure go. Asia has as many if not more unique environments and changeability in said environments. It also had a suite of great apes living in those environments for about the same time, which ended up with Orangs as their only known modern survivor. This might explain the primitive wrists, as it would have come from their common African/eurasian ape ancestors. No astro out of africa required as it would have evolved locally from asian astros.

Or who is to say that great apes/proto hominids weren't busy going back and forth throught eurasia over time. The Apes were.

*OK mad.

** it's my firm belief there was an local Asian evolution of Asian erectus into an Asian "Neadertal", just as there was in Europe and as there was in Africa. IE Erectus Mark II. Clearly there was erectus mark II in Europe; Neandertals. Erectus mark II in Africa; Us, or most of where we came from(not all). So why in such a diverse environment with local selection pressure over the same long period? indeed erectus stayed longer and more continously in Asia than in Europe because Asia didn't suffer to nearly the same degree from the various ice ages.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

.... OK I'm thinking of one more slight if a little "out there"* possibility... What if alongside the great ape evolution in Africa that gave rise to African hominids there was another great ape evolution local to Asia that also gave rise to proto hominids? Asian ones. An Asian australopithecine ish type Ape**. I don't see why not as far as environment and selective pressure go. Asia has as many if not more unique environments and changeability in said environments. It also had a suite of great apes living in those environments for about the same time, which ended up with Orangs as their only known modern survivor. This might explain the primitive wrists, as it would have come from their common African/eurasian ape ancestors. No astro out of africa required as it would have evolved locally from asian astros.

Or who is to say that great apes/proto hominids weren't busy going back and forth throught eurasia over time. The Apes were.

*OK mad.

** it's my firm belief there was an local Asian evolution of Asian erectus into an Asian "Neadertal", just as there was in Europe and as there was in Africa. IE Erectus Mark II. Clearly there was erectus mark II in Europe; Neandertals. Erectus mark II in Africa; Us, or most of where we came from(not all). So why in such a diverse environment with local selection pressure over the same long period? indeed erectus stayed longer and more continously in Asia than in Europe because Asia didn't suffer to nearly the same degree from the various ice ages.

These are some fascinating ideas!

Two different proto-hominid branches... seems perfectly plausible to me. I don`t know much about hominids tho.

Wibbs

Thanks AK

thought I'd get a few "eh wut?"s for that one

The problem of course is evidence or lack of it AK, or more to the point lack of places where one might find evidence. The number of African fossils of the erectus and before period outstripped homs and proto homs elsewhere(after an early start in China), because they were and are easier to get to and there were more layers and datable layers exposed on the ground. Plus conditions for half decent preservation were around for longer than in most Asian sites looked at. Broadly speaking it's easier to search for and find fossils in this;
image_preview

Than in this;

It's also more likely to preserve a body in the former relatively temperate(not damp) with lots of deposition site, than in the tropical site where bodies break down rapidly and even bone lasts for mere weeks if not covered very quickly. Just like I reckon we're missing huge amounts of dinos and other early life who had the audacity, nay sheer effin cheek to live and die in dryish woodland environments.

A good example of this is in looking for the ancestors of present day chimps and gorillas. The joke is we have more example of homs and proto homs then we have for proto chimps. Far more. Why? because chimps lived in jungles, while we and our ancestors lived in more shifting grassland areas.

I'm amazed Flores lads and ladettes were found at all, but caves are a beaut for that. Those islands in that neck of the woods are cut with caves like a geological swiss cheese, so no doubt more stuff will be found if actively looked for. Funds as ever notwithstanding. I'm sure there are sites in various parts of east Asia that also hold huge potential but not as many people are looking. That's starting to change with the Chinese in particular coming up with some very interesting finds. Not least of what looks like a modern lower jaw about 60,000 too early for the current recent out of Africa timeline. Pigeons insert cat...

The recent find of a new species of human, teh denisovans in siberia http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/24/new-human-species-siberia raises the possibility of even more wacky shít popping up. Better again, the single bit of DNA extracted shows affinities with moderns in south west asia but not anywhere else. Pure out of Africa, like pure multiregionalism before it is looking shaky(yay! \o/

) Some Asian folks also have deep genetic markers that if genetic clocks are to be trusted go back, way back before African Erectus Part Deux left to conquer the world as broadly us.

Now that Denisovan lassie was just one DNA line and part of her shows up in moderns. The Neandertal DNA line that shows up in European and some Asian moderns is based on only a few Neandertal lines. I argued in here a good while back now, before the announcement that the link had been found, that they were only looking at eithe the Y or the X lines, not the nuclear DNA and that this is where they would find any Neandertal/Sapiens sexytime going on. Even with what they have extracted it's still not the full Neandertal DNA. So who knows what's left to discover when they do. And these buggers are mad, brilliant and dogged enough to try*. Maybe some Asian counterpart of that team equally mad enough to try may get some workable DNA from a future Flores specimen and then it could be interesting. Home erectus DNA? Wow, or a completely new line entirely**.

It's about to get real interesting in the next few years I reckon.

*Naturally considering the age and dearth of testable material and the guys who were able to extract what they have deserve a Nobel medal in my humble for even getting that.

** I;ll make another prediction that Erectus, "pure" actual Homo Erectus, not a dwarfed hobbit one will be found to have lived much nearer to our own time. Maybe even more recently than Neandertals in Europe. Around 20,000 BP. They were a magnificent lookin bugger altogether http://home.intekom.com/southafricanhistoryonline/pages/classroom/pages/projects/grade7/lesson6/graphics/erectus-skull.jpg

Adam Khor

So, according to your vision, how would Gigantopithecus fit in the puzzle?

I don`t know if there's a thread dedicated to this animal but I think it's fascinating... and they said that, originally, it was believed to be an ancestor of humans, whereas today it is believed to be closer to orangutans. Sadly, its remains are very incomplete...

I'd be interested to hear (read) ur ideas on Gigantopithecus. Although maybe this deserves a new thread?

Wibbs

I'm not that familiar with Gigantopithecus tbh. Except for the connection for some with" Bigfoot/Yeti". There's not a lot to go on either IIRC? Few teeth and a jawbone seems to be your lot. I do recall the story(dunno if true) that the teeth were being sold as dragons teeth by chinese herbalists.

To me anyway it looks like a gorilla. A big bleedin gorilla but that kinda body shape. Not upright walking anyway IMHO. I'd love if it was, then that would go along with my notion of concurrent local asian evolution of upright walking. It just seems too big for bipedalism if you scale up? If they ever find a pelvis that would settle it.

On the bigfoot/yeti front, one set of reports has always intrigued me the south east Asian "bigfoot" Orang pendek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek The locals describe it as a bipedal ape(not a human or spirit). Interestingly when alleged footprints have been found they don't look like human feet. They look like a mix between feet designed for knuckle walking and feet designed for bipedalism. They have a sideways projecting toe for a start. I do have some hopes that this animal may prove to be real. Not beyond the bounds of possibility either, given the recent discoveries of a population of unusually large chimps in the Congo, reported by locals for years. If it does exist, we won't be the only bipedal ape knocking about and if it is an ape on the way to bipedalism it would shed light on why that adaptation came about. If it's out there of course.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with Gigantopithecus tbh. Except for the connection for some with" Bigfoot/Yeti". There's not a lot to go on either IIRC? Few teeth and a jawbone seems to be your lot. I do recall the story(dunno if true) that the teeth were being sold as dragons teeth by chinese herbalists. To me anyway it looks like a gorilla. A big bleedin gorilla but that kinda body shape. Not upright walking anyway IMHO. I'd love if it was, then that would go along with my notion of concurrent local asian evolution of upright walking. It just seems too big for bipedalism if you scale up? If they ever find a pelvis that would settle it.

On the bigfoot/yeti front, one set of reports has always intrigued me the south east Asian "bigfoot" Orang pendek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek The locals describe it as a bipedal ape(not a human or spirit). Interestingly when alleged footprints have been found they don't look like human feet. They look like a mix between feet designed for knuckle walking and feet designed for bipedalism. They have a sideways projecting toe for a start. I do have some hopes that this animal may prove to be real. Not beyond the bounds of possibility either, given the recent discoveries of a population of unusually large chimps in the Congo, reported by locals for years. If it does exist, we won't be the only bipedal ape knocking about and if it is an ape on the way to bipedalism it would shed light on why that adaptation came about. If it's out there of course.

Well, you know about as much as I do on the subject.

Thanks for the response tho. I would also be happy if Orang Pendek turned out to be real but, considering that it's a cryptid (meaning that, if real, it must not be very abundant to begin with) and the current rate of rainforest destruction in South Eastern Asia, I'd say that if the ape was real, it would be either critically endangered or already extinct at this point. I'm being realistic, not pesimistic. XD

Speaking of bipedal apes, I recently re-discovered Oreopithecus and thought it was super interesting. An ape that developed bipedalism separately from hominids.

Looks a lot like the supossed Orang Pendek btw... although it is known only from Italy and lived in the Miocene, which makes it very unlikely that it survived to recent times. Oh well...

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

Went walkabout...

I dunno, I think scientifically the flores Hobbit is a headache looking for an aspirin, an outlier looking for an explanation, any explanation at the moment.

There are a few issues with the finds. The advanced stone toolkit found with them for a start. If these lithics are reliably theirs it throws a major spanner in the works. What with their small brains an all. They're certainly more sophisticated than Erectus in Asia thus found. They're more like late mousterian/Neandertal in design. Then there's where they are found. Flores has been cut off by sea for many millions of years. So they had to make it there. This requires some level of seafaring in the original erectus(IMHO) populations. Not unlikely as one might think if potential discoveries on Crete are anything to go by; http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2591 *

The australopithecine link? Looking at the bones with my very inexpert eye, I would have concluded that the resemblance to australopithecine is less down to any direct familial link but more down to changes in the bones wrought by island dwarfism. They resemble erectus more than australopithecines IMHO. Even so an Erectus with an advanced lithic technology and the ability to put to sea and find new habitats out of sight of the land they set out from is pretty damned amazing.

As for astros moving out of Africa? Possible alright. One theory holds that many of the earlier great apes first left Africa moved into Eurasia and then moved back and forth giving us the African great apes and the Orangs of Asia. I suspect they would need a far more stable food corridor than hominids as hominids have more habitation and diet adaptations. One reason they might struggle without such a corridor is defo diet. Astros seemed to be much more vegetarian than homos. Carnivores(omnivores) and scavengers have one distinct advantage. Pretty much boils down to "is it alive/are vultures eating that Ted?" "yep". "Right so Ted we can eat that then". That dietary change is much less reliant on specialised foods or seasons. Erectus was a carnivore/scavenger so would be easier at a distinct advantage of being first.

aside * those Cretan tools raised a thought/theory/madness I've always had about humans closer to home in Ireland. People are looking for and have always looked for flint tools. It's synonymous with the "stone age"(though they defo used a lot of wood tools). Natural flint is rare in Ireland, so any early populations that made it here(erectus/heidelbergensis made it to the UK after all) would likely use other local stones rather than flint. This goes double for earlier hominids as they didn't trade as far as they can tell and were very local when it came to lithic material. It goes triple when you consider that the only likely place to find earlier hominids in Ireland is in the south west where the ice didn't bugger the place too badly and there's no flint at all in that region. My theory is that maybe there are examples of such tools not made from flint, possibly made by erectus or Neandertals laying around and being missed as they're not what we're looking for. /aside

Well as you say Wibbs either and erectus or australo link is pretty amazing and either aurguement has some interesting baggage with it I.E seafaring ect. I agree with the tool kit asociated with flores man being too adavanced.Still this was an amazing species of human which was remembered in legend by the islanders as ebu gogo.

Regarding the use and type of tools I agree with what your proposing. Scientists are very conservative for the most part where biology and hominds especially by nature are not conservative. Surely intelligent creatures would make do with whatever resource available to them be it flint, quartz or whatever? Some palaeontologists have theorised that erectus used bamboo in some parts of asia given the rarity of stone tools found I dont see why it would be any different in ireland.

Wibbs

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some palaeontologists have theorised that erectus used bamboo in some parts of asia given the rarity of stone tools found I dont see why it would be any different in ireland.

That would be my take alright. Dunno if you caught the BBC docudrama about sapiens and erectus meeting in Asia earlier tonight*. Was interesting enough http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13889128 though some of the usual dodgy acting

At one point they stated "no evidence exists that erectus made spears". Nope, not quite http://asa.chm.colostate.edu/archive/asa/199702/0239.html they did and interestingly though the same program suggested that their shoulder joint unlike ours meant they couldn't throw them, these spears were apparently weighted for just that. Yes they had a shoulder joint that was less versatile than ours. But it was stronger. Go into the fitness forum hereabouts and search for "rotator cuff injury". Your serious weight lifting types can be prone to it. Erectus and Neandertals no. The latter if they happened to be passing the Olympic weightlifting finals and signed up would win all weight classes without breaking sweat. Right there's a second avenue for my DIY Cloning kit

It just goes to show how a "weakness" a trade off in one way is an advantage in another.

But yea I wouldnt be looking for flint tools as evidence for previous homs in Ireland. Not for non sapiens who didn't trade anyway. Can be a problem to spot such tools though. In the past I've tried the oul flint knapping. I can do some tools. Though an Erectus would pee himself laughing at my efforts. A Neandertal would pat me on the head, make a circular movement at his temples to his mates while I wasn't looking and whisper "best if he stays close to the slower children of the group".

But I can generally tell a real tool in flint from a fake or the natural(and I've amassed a collection of same over the years from several sources. Mostly pre modern).

Flint tools are real easy to spot the human element in. Very distinctive signs. Percussion bulbs and the like. Other stones don't. Not for my inexpert eye anyway. I've tried(its long being a theory of mine. Since I was 13

I discovered women late:D). I do have in my collection one or two Mousterian(Neandertal) tools that aren't made of flint, but instead some sort of coarser quartzite. They're fairly recognisable, mainly because my distant Neandertal cousins seemed to get the hard on for symmetry and had the talent and applied skill to follow that through. Still I'm sure I could drop the best example in front of the vast majority of clued in and knowledgeable folks in Ireland(and bear in mind we have a sadly underused embarrassment of riches there) and they'd probably miss it. Something like an erectus chopper tool? No way, or very very unlikely. I'm convinced they're out there in this country. Probably absentmindedly kicked around a farm path in Cork by a lad or lass going to check on the horses in the top paddock.

*same bat time, same bat channel next week re Neandertals. No doubt as is current they'll make them look more like us. We've gone from the hunched over barbarous ape of Victorian times, to oh "they were just like us with big noses. You could shave them and put them in a suit and you'd not spot them walking down the street". IMHO a swing too far. I'll put money if one ever defrosts from the Siberian tundra it will be a shock. They'll look more like the barbarous ape than the slightly funny looking modern human. It's culturally interesting to me that the more we find they were capable of symbolic thought the more we feel we have to recreate them in our own image. Like fallen angels. It seems hard for us to equate brains and culture and symbolism with something that isn't "us". I see them as far more hairy for a start. Look at their animal counterparts in the same environment. Elephants become woolie mammoths. Rhinos become woolie rhinos. Yet humans get less woolie over 200,000 years sharing the same environment? Eh no. Shít some reconstructions have them clean shaven. Yea flint can be made sharper than the sharpest steel razor, but I doubt these lads were doing Gilette ads.:D God my asides are getting longer.

You see fave mod Galvasean invoked me. I'm like Beetlejuice. Say my name three times and prepare to be bored.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll put money if one ever defrosts from the Siberian tundra it will be a shock. They'll look more like the barbarous ape than the slightly funny looking modern human. It's culturally interesting to me that the more we find they were capable of symbolic thought the more we feel we have to recreate them in our own image. Like fallen angels. It seems hard for us to equate brains and culture and symbolism with something that isn't "us". I see them as far more hairy for a start. Look at their animal counterparts in the same environment. Elephants become woolie mammoths. Rhinos become woolie rhinos. Yet humans get less woolie over 200,000 years sharing the same environment? Eh no. Shít some reconstructions have them clean shaven.

Well, nowadays everything has to be clean shaven. Have you seen the MTV remake of Teen Wolf?

But I agree with you. We humans are an arrogant bunch. If it's intelligent, then it must be human (as in, Homo sapiens sapiens). If its intelligent but not human, then "it appears to show some degree of intelligence" or "some say that yaddah yaddah but ITS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY CONFIRMED". Scientists (maybe not all of them, but most) are a bunch of big fat squares.

Galvasean

Sure left to nature's own devices most modern humans are pretty damn wolly. Based on the last two winters I'm glad for it!

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Sometimes I believe scientists are lazy. They seem to recoil in dread at the thought of re-writing what they thought they knew already. Archaeopteryx, for example, is still considered to be "the earliest bird" by pretty much everyone, despite its having more in common with dromeosaurs (raptors) than with actual birds.
If you go to Wikipedia you will find it classiffied as Aves, Archaeopterygiformes, Archaeopterygidae. Scientists are very comfortable knowing that there IS an "earliest bird" and that they don`t have to start looking for the first bird once again.

I think, tho, that in a recent paper they finally re-classiffied Archie as an unenlagiine dromeosaur (that is, a close relative to Rahonavis, Unenlagia and the gigantic Austroraptor). Seems that no one paid much attention, tho.

My point is that new ideas shouldn`t be rejected just because they don`t fit in a neat, apparently solved puzzle.

Exactly that happens a lot in every scientific field.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

.... OK I'm thinking of one more slight if a little "out there"* possibility... What if alongside the great ape evolution in Africa that gave rise to African hominids there was another great ape evolution local to Asia that also gave rise to proto hominids? Asian ones. An Asian australopithecine ish type Ape**. I don't see why not as far as environment and selective pressure go. Asia has as many if not more unique environments and changeability in said environments. It also had a suite of great apes living in those environments for about the same time, which ended up with Orangs as their only known modern survivor. This might explain the primitive wrists, as it would have come from their common African/eurasian ape ancestors. No astro out of africa required as it would have evolved locally from asian astros.

Or who is to say that great apes/proto hominids weren't busy going back and forth throught eurasia over time. The Apes were.

*OK mad.

** it's my firm belief there was an local Asian evolution of Asian erectus into an Asian "Neadertal", just as there was in Europe and as there was in Africa. IE Erectus Mark II. Clearly there was erectus mark II in Europe; Neandertals. Erectus mark II in Africa; Us, or most of where we came from(not all). So why in such a diverse environment with local selection pressure over the same long period? indeed erectus stayed longer and more continously in Asia than in Europe because Asia didn't suffer to nearly the same degree from the various ice ages.

Evolution has thrown up far stanger patterns Wibbs so your theory wouldnt surprise me at all. That would be an example of convirgent evolution if Im not mistaken. Different groups finding simular solutions to simular problems. The homo tree is so complex that nothing would surprise me. A lot of people think were exempt from the laws that govern the rest of nature eg island dwarfisim. What the apes were capable of the homnids and australos were certainly capable of.

Bipedalisim Is good for nothing if not long distance walking, and like the apes from an early age humans and most definatly the rest of our homind family have had the wanderlust (this is decribed by Desmond Morris as a innate urge to explore). As I said before evolution isnt conservative so why should our views on it be!

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bipedalisim Is good for nothing if not long distance walking, and like the apes from an early age humans and most definatly the rest of our homind family have had the wanderlust (this is decribed by Desmond Morris as a innate urge to explore). As I said before evolution isnt conservative so why should our views on it be!

Good for nothing? What about leaving the forelimbs free to do stuff other than walking? Pangolins are bipedal and they don´t travel long distances (that I know of). I would bet many theropods were likewise not travelers but being bipedal allowed them to use their forelimbs to catch prey. Being bipedal also allows u to find potential prey or predators at the distance.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Good for nothing? What about leaving the forelimbs free to do stuff other than walking? Pangolins are bipedal and they don´t travel long distances (that I know of). I would bet many theropods were likewise not travelers but being bipedal allowed them to use their forelimbs to catch prey. Being bipedal also allows u to find potential prey or predators at the distance.

Well it was a figure of speech but your right bipedalisim has multi factorial stimuli for evolution and various benifits. The point I was supposed to be making was an bipedal omnivore, like most hominids were, would most likely have a large roaming range. Hominds being intelligent animals would have also had a desire to explore. Pangolians wouldnt be described as true bipedal in that they sometimes use their forelimbs for terratrial locomotion.

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well it was a figure of speech but your right bipedalisim has multi factorial stimuli for evolution and various benifits. The point I was supposed to be making was an bipedal omnivore, like most hominids were, would most likely have a large roaming range. Hominds being intelligent animals would have also had a desire to explore. Pangolians wouldnt be described as true bipedal in that they sometimes use their forelimbs for terratrial locomotion.

Gotcha.

Changing subject a little bit, what do you guys think about that theory that says hominins left Africa (or whatever their birthplace was) following after large predators like lions, hyenas and sabertooths to scavenge on their kills?
Or, for that matter, the opposite theory that says that regions with abundant large predators would limit the movements of hominins?

Yitzhak Rabin

Adam Khor wrote: »

Gotcha.

Changing subject a little bit, what do you guys think about that theory that says hominins left Africa (or whatever their birthplace was) following after large predators like lions, hyenas and sabertooths to scavenge on their kills?
Or, for that matter, the opposite theory that says that regions with abundant large predators would limit the movements of hominins?

Is there evidence of those animals leaving Africa at the same time?

Adam Khor

yekahS wrote: »

Is there evidence of those animals leaving Africa at the same time?

I don´t know. I suposse there must be some, if they are discussing that possibility. I even remember a Nat Geo article on the subject but even tho I have a pretty good memory, all I can think of now are the amazing illustrations that came with it. XD

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with Gigantopithecus tbh. Except for the connection for some with" Bigfoot/Yeti". There's not a lot to go on either IIRC? Few teeth and a jawbone seems to be your lot. I do recall the story(dunno if true) that the teeth were being sold as dragons teeth by chinese herbalists. To me anyway it looks like a gorilla. A big bleedin gorilla but that kinda body shape. Not upright walking anyway IMHO. I'd love if it was, then that would go along with my notion of concurrent local asian evolution of upright walking. It just seems too big for bipedalism if you scale up? If they ever find a pelvis that would settle it.

Not much is known about Giganto except a few teeth and a partial jaw bone it seems. Micro wear analysis on the teeth indicated giganto was an omnivore and not a bamboo eater as has been previously claimed. The danger with Giganto is the connection with the bigfoot phenomenon. Now personally I do find bigfoots existence a distinct possibility but the connection with Giganto could cause people to assign a bipedal gait to giganto with out evidence just to fit the bigfoot theory. Grover krantz and jeff meldrum were often accused of this. There is a convincing case put forward by meldrum stating that Giganto must have been bipedal because its enormous weight (more than twice that or a gorilla) would have made knuckle walking increasingly difficult due to the huge strain placed on its shoulder joint. To counter this Giganto would have adapted a bipedal gait according to meldrum but as you say Wibbs it will be the discovery of a pelvis that would sort this out.

On the bigfoot/yeti front, one set of reports has always intrigued me the south east Asian "bigfoot" Orang pendek. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek The locals describe it as a bipedal ape(not a human or spirit). Interestingly when alleged footprints have been found they don't look like human feet. They look like a mix between feet designed for knuckle walking and feet designed for bipedalism. They have a sideways projecting toe for a start. I do have some hopes that this animal may prove to be real. Not beyond the bounds of possibility either, given the recent discoveries of a population of unusually large chimps in the Congo, reported by locals for years. If it does exist, we won't be the only bipedal ape knocking about and if it is an ape on the way to bipedalism it would shed light on why that adaptation came about. If it's out there of course.

Photographer Jeremy holden who sometimes took pictures for national geographic claims to have seen one as has debbie martyr who works in tiger conservation. As Jeremy says "the moment I saw it I knew I was seeing something new". Its described as around 3 and a half feet tall and built like a sumo on steroids, covered in hair and extremely intelligent. National geographic had pasrt funded a project to photograph the creature. Again I would have to agree with Jeremy that "its a human conceit that were the only biped".

The new type of hominid that was found in the altai mountains the so called x-woman was also found in a place where there are many stories of the almasty, a type of wild man that was heavily built and covered in hair.

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

I don´t know. I suposse there must be some, if they are discussing that possibility. I even remember a Nat Geo article on the subject but even tho I have a pretty good memory, all I can think of now are the amazing illustrations that came with it. XD

A lot of the african mammals originally came from eurasia and migrated back and forth at various different times. Im not sure if it matches up with a hominid exodus but Its a good theory!

Galvasean

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is a convincing case put forward by meldrum stating that Giganto must have been bipedal because its enormous weight (more than twice that or a gorilla) would have made knuckle walking increasingly difficult due to the huge strain placed on its shoulder joint.

Chalicotherium was a knuckle walker and weighed an awful lot more than a silverback gorilla.

Chalicotherium.png&sa=X&ei=uaEHTvXsD4b0sgaa5q2xCA&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG_OBvveiWk4djNzn4N-q7uaC_4Tw

Chalicotherium.png&sa=X&ei=uaEHTvXsD4b0sgaa5q2xCA&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNG_OBvveiWk4djNzn4N-q7uaC_4Tw

Adam Khor

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is a convincing case put forward by meldrum stating that Giganto must have been bipedal because its enormous weight (more than twice that or a gorilla) would have made knuckle walking increasingly difficult due to the huge strain placed on its shoulder joint. To counter this Giganto would have adapted a bipedal gait according to meldrum but as you say Wibbs it will be the discovery of a pelvis that would sort this out.

That's a pretty cool idea, a bipedal Giganto... but I have to agree with Galvasean; I don´t think being very heavy excludes knuckle-walking.
Yes, only a pelvis (or perhaps even leg and feet bones) would settle this, but as much as I love the idea of a giant bipedal ape roaming the Asian forests and scaring the lights out Homo erectus, I have to agree with Galvasean- just because the animal was super heavy, it doesn´t mean it couldn´t be a knuckle walker.

I guess Gigantopithecus' habitat should tell us a lot about the possibilities of it being a quadruped or a biped. If I'm not mistaken, the ape lived in forests (some say bamboo forests). If you're living in such a place, being bipedal really doesn´t give you many advantages. In a savannah, you can add to your height and be able to detect predators from greater distances, but in the forest, trees block visibility around you, so wether you stand in all fours or as a biped should be rather irrelevant. Moving through dense vegetation, however, should be more difficult for a three meter tall biped, or that's what I imagine.
My idea, with the info I have, is that, if Gigantopithecus was really a forest dweller, then it was most likely a quadruped, like modern day gorillas and chimpanzees. It could probably stand as a biped but perhaps only to fight or to carry stuff, like gorillas. Either way it would be an impressive beast to behold!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Photographer Jeremy holden who sometimes took pictures for national geographic claims to have seen one as has debbie martyr who works in tiger conservation. As Jeremy says "the moment I saw it I knew I was seeing something new". Its described as around 3 and a half feet tall and built like a sumo on steroids, covered in hair and extremely intelligent. National geographic had pasrt funded a project to photograph the creature. Again I would have to agree with Jeremy that "its a human conceit that were the only biped".

The new type of hominid that was found in the altai mountains the so called x-woman was also found in a place where there are many stories of the almasty, a type of wild man that was heavily built and covered in hair.

"and extremely intelligent". I love that bit. Guess he took the trouble of testing the ape's IQ

I haven´t read a lot about the X-woman, but it is a fact that old cultures around the world do remember extinct animals and keep talking about them in their oral traditions (Chickcharnie, the Hokioi, the Unicorn, the list goes on and on).
However, I would think that if there are any hominins other than us alive today, they are probably on the verge of extinction, or extinct already. Even animals as rare as the Javan rhino and the Saola have been photographed in the wild; I would expect some footage of the supossed hominins to have surfaced already. As for bigfoot and the yeti... well, I really don´t think they exist, to be honest. It is a cool thought, of course, but... there is no reason to believe they are around, from what I have read.

steddyeddy

Galvasean wrote: »

Chalicotherium was a knuckle walker and weighed an awful lot more than a silverback gorilla.

Very true an adult silverback can weight five hundred pounds while giganto was thought to have weighed 500 kilos or more. The point made by meldrum (that I should have put forward) was that the complexity of the ape shoulder joint along with the increasing width of the animal to encompass an increasingly large shoulder blade would have made load bearing via knuckle walking difficult. Grover krantz noted that the shape of the jaw bone indicates that the spine was attached directly below the jaw indicating an upright posistion. These are far from conclusive though.