wouldn't humans have responded physiologically as well

[Llaa1100]

al owens by wouldn't humans have responded physiologically as
well - like for
> > > instance becoming much more tolerant to water
> > > deprevation?

[Deowll]

"llaa1100" <llaa1100@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c811853.0307171248.1289ae57@posting.google.com...
> al owens by wouldn't humans have responded physiologically
> as well - like for
> > > > instance becoming much more tolerant to water
> > > > deprevation?

I read some really interesting things about Austrialian Abos.
We aren't adapted to the same things. The kung have some very
interesting abilities. Part of the problem is something I
noted before. Most humans don't live with chronic water
shortages. If an ability isn't life or death selection stops.
Super efficant kidneys and such can be resources hogs. If
your populations doesn't need something pretty soon they
don't have it.

[Bob Keeter]

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:K3_Ra.2742$647.391@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "llaa1100" <llaa1100@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7c811853.0307171248.1289ae57@posting.google.com...
> > al owens by wouldn't humans have responded physiologically
> > as well - like for
> > > > > instance becoming much more tolerant to water
> > > > > deprevation?
>
> I read some really interesting things about Austrialian
> Abos. We aren't adapted to the same things. The kung have
> some very interesting abilities. Part of the problem is
> something I noted before. Most humans don't live
with
> chronic water shortages. If an ability isn't life or death
> selection
stops.
> Super efficant kidneys and such can be resources hogs. If
> your populations doesn't need something pretty soon they
> don't have it.

Consider a slightly different angle. . . .

If humans had to exist in a very dry environment for a couple
of million years on the same basis as any other dry savanna or
desert creature, you WOULD expect physiological changes. Those
best able to survive would be best able to procreate, etc.
etc. etc. On the other hand, if there was an alternative to
those physiological changes that had the same effect. . . . .!

For example, which would be the "most favorable" for the
largest part of the population, the "invention" of ostrich
shell or animal gut "canteens" or the evolution of "desert
rat" kidneys? Which could "respond" quicker to the need to
conserve water? ("Rat kidneys" might take hundreds if not
thousands of generations to even begin to show significant
effect; a canteen takes one "day dream" and the next day to
implement.)

Once you can carry several days worth of water with you, just
about everywhere but the true deserts becomes "accessable"
even for footbound primates. Furthermore, with the simple
technological "quantum leap" of a canteen, the evolutionary
pressures towards that physiological adaptation of a "desert
rat kidney" and extreme water conservation simply fade away in
significance! Now your examples of Aborigines (and probably
the other desert dwelling "primitives") would probably show
some fair "adaptations" to their environments when compared to
Brooklynites, these adaptations are far less extreme (and
probably more cultural) than anything that I would suggest
that you find in true "desert" creatures.

Regards bk

[Deowll]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8d-
aSa.109329$Io.9354477@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:K3_Ra.2742$647.391@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "llaa1100" <llaa1100@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7c811853.0307171248.1289ae57@posting.google.com...
> > > al owens by wouldn't humans have responded
> > > physiologically as well - like for
> > > > > > instance becoming much more tolerant to water
> > > > > > deprevation?
> >
> > I read some really interesting things about Austrialian
> > Abos. We aren't adapted to the same things. The kung have
> > some very interesting
abilities.
> > Part of the problem is something I noted before. Most
> > humans don't live
> with
> > chronic water shortages. If an ability isn't life or death
> > selection
> stops.
> > Super efficant kidneys and such can be resources hogs.
> > If your
populations
> > doesn't need something pretty soon they don't have it.
>
> Consider a slightly different angle. . . .
>
> If humans had to exist in a very dry environment for a
> couple of million years on the same basis as any other dry
> savanna or desert creature, you WOULD expect physiological
> changes. Those best able to survive would be best able to
> procreate, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, if there was an
> alternative to those physiological changes that had the same
> effect. . . . .!
>
> For example, which would be the "most favorable" for the
> largest part of
the
> population, the "invention" of ostrich shell or animal gut
> "canteens" or
the
> evolution of "desert rat" kidneys? Which could "respond"
> quicker to the need to conserve water? ("Rat kidneys" might
> take hundreds if not
thousands
> of generations to even begin to show significant effect; a
> canteen takes
one
> "day dream" and the next day to implement.)
>
> Once you can carry several days worth of water with you,
> just about everywhere but the true deserts becomes
> "accessable" even for footbound primates. Furthermore, with
> the simple technological "quantum leap" of a canteen, the
> evolutionary pressures towards that physiological adaptation
of
> a "desert rat kidney" and extreme water conservation simply
> fade away in significance! Now your examples of Aborigines
> (and probably the other desert dwelling "primitives") would
> probably show some fair "adaptations"
to
> their environments when compared to Brooklynites, these
> adaptations are
far
> less extreme (and probably more cultural) than anything
> that I would
suggest
> that you find in true "desert" creatures.
>
> Regards bk
>
It has been demonstrated that a naked Abo in very cold air is
loosing about 25 % less heat than was expected. However I'm
not sure how much this has to do with being almost naked in
very cold weather for much of your life. The body seems to be
able to learn tricks like focusing under water you start young
enough. Some studies on certain mental skills showed Abo kids
betting the snot out of European types on ability to recall
how items were arranged on a table. It might be that they were
doing something from child hood to develope that skill or it
might be inate.

I suppose you are right Homo erctus might have needed super
kidneys in some places and may have had them. Homo sapians has
normally used containers in most places starting a very long
time ago. Staying out of the sun in the hottest part of the
day and making sure you could find water can pretty much do
the same thing. It's only going to be when you have people
dying of thirst fairly often that selection is going to do
much adapting or maintain the adaption.

[Spiznet]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<

> Once you can carry several days worth of water with you,
> just about everywhere but the true deserts becomes
> "accessable" even for footbound primates. Furthermore, with
> the simple technological "quantum leap" of a canteen, the
> evolutionary pressures towards that physiological adaptation
> of a "desert rat kidney" and extreme water conservation
> simply fade away in significance! <snip>... these <human>
> adaptations are far less extreme (and probably more
> cultural) than anything that I would suggest that you find
> in true "desert" creatures. Regards bk

Agreed! There is a point at which humans moved beyond the
"natural selection" constraints defined by their biome. It
would be interesting to know whether evolution continued after
this point (I don't know whether you could call the "races"
evolution, more like population isolation), whether it slowed
or sped up (it *is* a unique case, you got to admit). ...The
environment defines natural selection, but we define the
environment. ... Evolution must have continued, since we see
H.e back 1.8mya making the first X-African radiation. The
environment was being shaped at this point (?) , or is this
still purely animal migratory behavior?

-Mark

[Philip Dei]

On 23 Jul 2003 14:19:00 -0700, mark@spiznet.com
(Spiznet) wrote:

>Evolution must have continued, since we see H.e back 1.8mya

greater than, 1.8 my is the first sign of H.e. in eurasia but
the next signs are 200,000 years later and questioned. The 1.8
million years has a deviation of + 500 ky.

> making the first X-African radiation. The environment was
> being shaped at this point (?) , or is this still purely
> animal migratory behavior?

I would qualify humans even up to 40,000 years ago as more or
less animistic in their approach to nature. In certain places
like Japan, it has been mentioned that H/G foraging designed
for optimal usage (and therefore depriving many competitors)
These things are kicking in say 10 to 20 kya. I am sure there
are other areas of the world that qualify equally but when we
talk about a big open planet and a tiny populations in africa,
the process of spreading on culture has got to have dragged
humans bagged to picking snails off the seashore and making
single night dwellings for some periods of time before they
could build bonafida seasonal structures. If you read the site
the early melanesian they water craft was probably as close as
they came to a house. Bad weather comes they drag it out of
water and hunker down until it passes. I don't think you can
argue that Jomon were managing whale or tuna populations. The
guy with the best boat caught the most tuna because he could
tap into fishing holes the other guys could not reach, but
that was a tiny fraction of the reservoir. Obviously the !kung
are and have been managing the Namib that can be managed, but
the reality is that they have been their an awful long time
and very little evidence for recent replacement of migration.

[Bob Keeter]

"Spiznet" <mark@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:cb2e44af.0307231319.d20ba6c@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<
>
> > Once you can carry several days worth of water with you,
> > just about everywhere but the true deserts becomes
> > "accessable" even for footbound primates. Furthermore,
> > with the simple technological "quantum leap" of
a
> > canteen, the evolutionary pressures towards that
> > physiological
adaptation of
> > a "desert rat kidney" and extreme water conservation
> > simply fade away in significance! <snip>... these <human>
> > adaptations are far less extreme (and probably more
> > cultural) than anything that I would
suggest
> > that you find in true "desert" creatures. Regards bk
>
> Agreed! There is a point at which humans moved beyond the
> "natural selection" constraints defined by their biome. It
> would be interesting to know whether evolution continued
> after this point (I don't know whether you could call the
> "races" evolution, more like population isolation), whether
> it slowed or sped up (it *is* a unique case, you got to
> admit). ...The environment defines natural selection, but we
> define the environment.

Perhaps you find that there might be "checkpoints". For
example as far as I can tell, there was a pretty radical
re-arrangement of the basic skeletal design up to about the
point of HE. I suspect that if you take the post cranial
skeleton of any hominid after HE, you see the same basic
structure, i.e. more or less the same proportions of the limbs
to torso, arms to legs, etc. . . .Perhaps they had reached the
"optimum biped" but somehow I doubt that. On the other hand it
might have been that there were much more "productive"
adaptations in other directions. In the case of HE, I would
propose that the most obvious "evolutionary fast lane" could
be in the area of technology. Consider the HS radiation.. . .
. When HS moved into the far north did they gradually evolve a
thick pelt of insulating hair (as did every other
tropical/subtropical beast that moved to higher latitudes), or
did he evolve better ways to expropriate and utilize the pelts
of other arctic creatures? 8-)

> Evolution must have continued, since we see H.e back 1.8mya
> making the first X-African radiation. The environment was
> being shaped at this point (?) , or is this still purely
> animal migratory behavior?

"Shaping the environment" is a pretty strong statement. How
about "shaping ones response to the environment"? In the case
of HE, if they were sufficiently proficient hunters (and
gathers) to sustain themselves without any obligatory visits
to the tropical forests' fruit trees, they would be much
easier travelers than perhaps earlier homonids that were to
one degree or another "tied" to those year-round fruit baskets
of the rain forests. An HE with a handfull of sharp, fire
hardened javelins would not be able to "impact" the
environment beyond the point of consistently being able to
take down some prey animal for lunch, but he would definitely
have broader options for homesteading than a fructivore,
particularly come winter!

REgards bk

[Spiznet]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<
> "Spiznet" <mark@spiznet.com> wrote in message
> > "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<
> >
> > > Once you can carry several days worth of water with you,
> > > just about everywhere but the true deserts becomes
> > > "accessable" even for footbound primates. Furthermore,
> > > with the simple technological "quantum leap" of
> a
> > > canteen, the evolutionary pressures towards that
> > > physiological
> adaptation of
> > > a "desert rat kidney" and extreme water conservation
> > > simply fade away in significance! <snip>... these
> > > <human> adaptations are far less extreme (and probably
> > > more cultural) than anything that I would
> suggest
> > > that you find in true "desert" creatures. Regards bk
> >
> > Agreed! There is a point at which humans moved beyond the
> > "natural selection" constraints defined by their biome. It
> > would be interesting to know whether evolution continued
> > after this point (I don't know whether you could call the
> > "races" evolution, more like population isolation),
> > whether it slowed or sped up (it *is* a unique case, you
> > got to admit). ...The environment defines natural
> > selection, but we define the environment.
>
> Perhaps you find that there might be "checkpoints". For
> example as far as I can tell, there was a pretty radical
> re-arrangement of the basic skeletal design up to about the
> point of HE. I suspect that if you take the post cranial
> skeleton of any hominid after HE, you see the same basic
> structure, i.e. more or less the same proportions of the
> limbs to torso, arms to legs, etc. . . .Perhaps they had
> reached the "optimum biped" but somehow I doubt that. On the
> other hand it might have been that there were much more
> "productive" adaptations in other directions. In the case of
> HE, I would propose that the most obvious "evolutionary fast
> lane" could be in the area of technology. Consider the HS
> radiation.. . . . When HS moved into the far north did they
> gradually evolve a thick pelt of insulating hair (as did
> every other tropical/subtropical beast that moved to higher
> latitudes), or did he evolve better ways to expropriate and
> utilize the pelts of other arctic creatures? 8-)
>
> > Evolution must have continued, since we see H.e back
> > 1.8mya making the first X-African radiation. The
> > environment was being shaped at this point (?) , or is
> > this still purely animal migratory behavior?
>
> "Shaping the environment" is a pretty strong statement. How
> about "shaping ones response to the environment"?
<snip>
> REgards bk

Yes I wanted to retract my "death of evolution" point
immediately upon posting, or at least move it up to the
Neolithic period.

You are right there is a gray period 2.5mya - 10kya where we
are not completely at the mercy of "natural selection" yet we
are still living off the land with limited storage capacities.

-Mark

[Bob Keeter]

"Spiznet" <mark@spiznet.com> wrote in message
news:cb2e44af.0307240950.68803d0b@posting.google.com...
Snippage. . . .

>
> Yes I wanted to retract my "death of evolution" point
> immediately upon posting, or at least move it up to the
> Neolithic period.
>

Lets see now, was it Truman who minted the statement to the
effect that his demise was greatly overstated? ;-) Evolution
has NOT disappeared, its just been redirected by the demands
of a very different environment. Perhaps our "keyboard
reflexes" are on the average across the population just a tad
bit better than they were 100 yrs ago when typewriters were
rare! 8-) And if you think about it, since about HE the
physical size of a human has not changed all that much,
post-cranially from a morphological standpoint, about the
same. . . .with only minor details (and crainial expansion
gone hog wild during the same span where the body "locked in".
Maybe somewhere there in the HE range technology and biology
were running neck and neck in terms of being the compensating
factors for environmental "challenges". Since then, its been a
bang-on case of technology adapting while biology took a break
(except perhaps between the ears).

Perhaps it was about at the HE stage where intellect became
the "driver" instead of physical size and raw strength
(although I still would not want to arm wrestle a
Neanderthal). On the other hand, perhaps a Neanderthal was a
"throwback" in terms of the evolutionary pressure to a state
where physical strength and robustness was THE deciding
factor! 8-) Brawn + Brains (assuming of course that
Neanderthals were intellectually about the same as other
hominids of the time. . . . .).

> You are right there is a gray period 2.5mya - 10kya where we
> are not completely at the mercy of "natural selection" yet
> we are still living off the land with limited storage
> capacities.
>
> -Mark

8-) Depends on whether you are one who ascribes technology to
an unnatural act or not now doesnt it! Some of us
dumbandignorantworthlessandcrudlyunsophisticated (whew! say
that one fast!) engineers see absolutely nothing unnatural
about technology! ;-)

I would offer that as along as a creature has the ability
(manipulative limbs) and the intellect the starts of
technological evolution are inevitable and just as natural as
the biological acts. The pre-eminence of technology might just
be that technology reacts so fast compared to biology. If a
"need" arises, a technological response is possible in hours,
days, weeks, months or maybe years. For biological evolution
to even have a chance to "set in" it takes many tens of years,
i.e. several generations! If the biological "eco-system" gets
a tweak from some new stimulus, but technological responses
come to the rescue before the biology can react, the stimulus
is negated, the driving force disappears, and. . . .
biological evolution is put into stasis!

Sound familiar? 8-))

Regards bk

[Ross Macfa]

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uYzTa.9087$h9.8567@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> It has been demonstrated that a naked Abo in very cold air
> is loosing
about
> 25 % less heat than was expected. However I'm not sure how
> much this has
to
> do with being almost naked in very cold weather for much of
> your life. The body seems to be able to learn tricks like
> focusing under water you start young enough. Some studies on
> certain mental skills showed Abo kids
betting
> the snot out of European types on ability to recall how
> items were
arranged
> on a table. It might be that they were doing something from
> child hood to develope that skill or it might be inate.
>
Colleagues,

I have noted here & elsewhere in the past that, although no
doubt you did not intend it so, the term "abo" is an extremely
derogatory term for an Australian aborigine, on a par with
"nigger" or "kaffir". Please refrain from using this as an
abbreviation.

Thanks,

Ross Macfarlane

[Philip Dei]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:09:02 +1000, "Ross Macfarlane"
<rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

>I have noted here & elsewhere in the past that, although no
>doubt you did not intend it so, the term "abo" is an
>extremely derogatory term for an Australian aborigine, on a
>par with "nigger" or "kaffir". Please refrain from using this
>as an abbreviation.

Well, we finally got a definition for "abo". I've heard of the
second but not the third.

[Jim McGinn]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote

> Lets see now, was it Truman who minted the statement to the
> effect that his demise was greatly overstated?

Mark Twain. One of his characters, something like: "Rumors of
my death have been greatly exxagerated."

Jim

[Rich Travs]

Bob Keeter wrote:
> [...] Consider a slightly different angle. . . .
>
> If humans had to exist in a very dry environment for a
> couple of million years on the same basis as any other dry
> savanna or desert creature, you WOULD expect physiological
> changes. Those best able to survive would be best able to
> procreate, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, if there was an
> alternative to those physiological changes that had the same
> effect. . . .

Is a couple million years really needed? Consider the short
time frame humans have been in the Americas (an even less time
than before if you've read the recent reports on migration to
the Americas). Those living in the Andes already have high
altitude adaptations...

> [...]

[Deowll]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:3F24A6B9.C64874F7@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Bob Keeter wrote:
> > [...] Consider a slightly different angle. . . .
> >
> > If humans had to exist in a very dry environment for a
> > couple of million years on the same basis as any other dry
> > savanna or desert creature, you WOULD expect physiological
> > changes. Those best able to survive would be best able to
> > procreate, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, if there was
an
> > alternative to those physiological changes that had the
> > same effect. . .
.
>
> Is a couple million years really needed? Consider the short
> time frame
humans
> have been in the Americas (an even less time than before if
> you've read
the
> recent reports on migration to the Americas). Those living
> in the Andes already have high altitude adaptations...
>
> > [...]

A few thousand years might produce some changes. If it was a
major health issue a couple of hundred years might put
together the best genes the local population carried into the
mountians.

[Deowll]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:aZ-
hUa.21766$Mc.1660760@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Spiznet" <mark@spiznet.com> wrote in message
> news:cb2e44af.0307240950.68803d0b@posting.google.com...
> Snippage. . . .
>
> >
> > Yes I wanted to retract my "death of evolution" point
> > immediately upon posting, or at least move it up to the
> > Neolithic period.
> >
>
> Lets see now, was it Truman who minted the statement to the
> effect that
his
> demise was greatly overstated? ;-) Evolution has NOT
> disappeared, its
just
> been redirected by the demands of a very different
> environment. Perhaps
our
> "keyboard reflexes" are on the average across the population
> just a tad
bit
> better than they were 100 yrs ago when typewriters were
> rare! 8-) And if you think about it, since about HE the
> physical size of a human has not changed all that much,
> post-cranially from a morphological standpoint,
about
> the same. . . .with only minor details (and crainial
> expansion gone hog
wild
> during the same span where the body "locked in". Maybe
> somewhere there in the HE range technology and biology were
> running neck and neck in terms of being the compensating
> factors for environmental "challenges". Since
then,
> its been a bang-on case of technology adapting while biology
> took a break (except perhaps between the ears).
>
> Perhaps it was about at the HE stage where intellect became
> the "driver" instead of physical size and raw strength
> (although I still would not want to arm wrestle a
> Neanderthal). On the other hand, perhaps a Neanderthal
was
> a "throwback" in terms of the evolutionary pressure to a
> state where physical strength and robustness was THE
> deciding factor! 8-) Brawn + Brains (assuming of course that
> Neanderthals were intellectually about the same as other
> hominids of the time. . . . .).
>
> > You are right there is a gray period 2.5mya - 10kya where
> > we are not completely at the mercy of "natural selection"
> > yet we are still living off the land with limited storage
> > capacities.
> >
> > -Mark
>
> 8-) Depends on whether you are one who ascribes
> technology to an
unnatural
> act or not now doesnt it! Some of us
> dumbandignorantworthlessandcrudlyunsophisticated (whew! say
> that one
fast!)
> engineers see absolutely nothing unnatural about
> technology! ;-)
>
> I would offer that as along as a creature has the ability
> (manipulative limbs) and the intellect the starts of
> technological evolution are inevitable and just as natural
> as the biological acts. The pre-eminence
of
> technology might just be that technology reacts so fast
> compared to
biology.
> If a "need" arises, a technological response is possible in
> hours, days, weeks, months or maybe years. For biological
> evolution to even have a chance to "set in" it takes many
> tens of years, i.e. several generations! If the biological
> "eco-system" gets a tweak from some new stimulus, but
> technological responses come to the rescue before the
> biology can react,
the
> stimulus is negated, the driving force disappears, and. . .
> . biological evolution is put into stasis!
>
> Sound familiar? 8-))
>
> Regards bk
>
>
Hominids were around a long time and so for as can be told not
much smarter until about the time stone tools started to show
up in the record. I do think a good case can be made that they
were all getting smarter toward the end so you may be right
but if the jungle had come back they might all have gone
extinct before tech started to take off. I'm not sure if the
giant Asian ape was a bipid or not but no evidence of tool use
has been tied to
it. I think I would change inevitable to highly likely
given enough time and a fair degree of intelligence to
start with.

[Deowll]

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0307252107.ae7d0aa@posting.google.com...
> "Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > Lets see now, was it Truman who minted the statement to
> > the effect that
his
> > demise was greatly overstated?
>
> Mark Twain. One of his characters, something like: "Rumors
> of my death have been greatly exxagerated."
>
> Jim

They ran his obit in the papar!

[Whitedog]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 20:54:18 -0500, "deowll"
<deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> Is a couple million years really needed? Consider the short
>> time frame
>humans
>> have been in the Americas (an even less time than before if
>> you've read
>the
>> recent reports on migration to the Americas). Those living
>> in the Andes already have high altitude adaptations...
>>
>> > [...]
>
>A few thousand years might produce some changes. If it was a
>major health issue a couple of hundred years might put
>together the best genes the local population carried into the
>mountians.

Think about how quickly the selective response to becoming
alchohol tolerant (the alchohol dehydrogenase adaptataion)
would have been in populations susceptable to polluted
drinking water and who hadn't realised that boiling to make
beer was the same as just boiling water!! It's certainly
proved a useful tool in weeding out unfortunate local
populations during the re-colonisation of the Americas and
elsewhere.

.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U' _,-' ,'`-__; '--. (_/'~~ ''''(;
whitedog_o_SPAMTASTIChound@hotMATEmail.com

[Bob Keeter]

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zLZWa.28660$f%2.20258@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...

SNippage. . .

> Hominids were around a long time and so for as can be told
> not much
smarter
> until about the time stone tools started to show up in the
> record. I do think a good case can be made that they were
> all getting smarter toward
the
> end so you may be right but if the jungle had come back they
> might all
have
> gone extinct before tech started to take off.

IF you assume that the "absence of jungle" was a driving
factor for the evolutionary development of advanced
intelligence, you can just about bet on it. Consider the dodo.
I seem to remember that it had been classifed as a descendent
of a pigeon- family bird that had flown to its protected
island. Suddenly flight had no great survival advantage, and
the wings straight-away atrophied. No survival advantage to
those powerful flight muscles and the biological investment
they entailed. . .just a burden to feed and carry around, so.
. . . poof! No more wings!

> I'm not sure if the giant Asian ape was a bipid or not but
> no evidence of
tool
> use has been tied to it. I think I would change inevitable
> to highly
likely given
> enough time and a fair degree of intelligence to start with.
>
"Highly likely" would be a very good substitution up to the
point where the intelligence had evolved to the point that the
primate was able to start manipulating the environment to the
degree that its survival could be driven by those modifing
effect. For example, a hunter has a much more seasonally
stable food supply than a pure fructivore. Furthermore, that
hunter is far less tied to one specific biome, insulating him
from even short term changes in climate that might simply
drive that fructivore predicessor to extinction.

So, even something as simple as a wooden javelin or
well-"engineered" digging stick might make a major difference
in the survival probabilities, and that suvival probability is
the underlying concept of Darwinism, isnt it?

As for that giant Asian ape (Gigantopithicus?), isnt the
latest thought that it might have basically been a giant
gorilla occupying something of the same niche as a giant
panda? As far as I know, the skull reconstructions have
ASSUMED some degree of bipedal posture, but not sure that
there is enough post-cranial, or even relatively complete
cranial material to make that more than an assumption.

Personally, given the suggested diet and environment, not sure
what advantage obligate bipedalism could have offered, and if
the suggested lineage (i.e. along the lines of a giant, ground
dwelling orang), not sure that it had the right "starting
material" to evolve into a free-striding biped. Perhaps
something along the lines of a gorilla's "occasional", vs
habitual or obligatory bipedal stance would be more
appropriate?

http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html
http://www.wynja.com/arch/gigantopithecus.html

Regards bk

[Deowll]

"Bob Keeter" <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:VT-
9Xa.32096$Mc.2552872@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:zLZWa.28660$f%2.20258@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> SNippage. . .
>
> > Hominids were around a long time and so for as can be told
> > not much
> smarter
> > until about the time stone tools started to show up in the
> > record. I do think a good case can be made that they were
> > all getting smarter toward
> the
> > end so you may be right but if the jungle had come back
> > they might all
> have
> > gone extinct before tech started to take off.
>
> IF you assume that the "absence of jungle" was a driving
> factor for the evolutionary development of advanced
> intelligence, you can just about bet on it. Consider the
> dodo. I seem to remember that it had been classifed as a
> descendent of a pigeon- family bird that had flown to its
> protected island. Suddenly flight had
no
> great survival advantage, and the wings straight-away
> atrophied. No survival advantage to those powerful flight
> muscles and the biological investment they entailed. .
> .just a burden to feed and carry around, so. . . . poof! No
> more wings!
>
> > I'm not sure if the giant Asian ape was a bipid or not but
> > no evidence
of
> tool
> > use has been tied to it. I think I would change inevitable
> > to highly
> likely given
> > enough time and a fair degree of intelligence to
> > start with.
> >
> "Highly likely" would be a very good substitution up to the
> point where
the
> intelligence had evolved to the point that the primate was
> able to start manipulating the environment to the degree
> that its survival could be
driven
> by those modifing effect. For example, a hunter has a
> much more
seasonally
> stable food supply than a pure fructivore. Furthermore, that
> hunter is
far
> less tied to one specific biome, insulating him from even
> short term changes in climate that might simply drive that
> fructivore predicessor to extinction.
>
> So, even something as simple as a wooden javelin or
> well-"engineered" digging stick might make a major
> difference in the survival probabilities, and
that
> suvival probability is the underlying concept of Darwinism,
> isnt it?
>
> As for that giant Asian ape (Gigantopithicus?), isnt the
> latest thought
that
> it might have basically been a giant gorilla occupying
> something of the same niche
as
> a giant panda? As far as I know, the skull reconstructions
> have ASSUMED
some
> degree of bipedal posture, but not sure that there is enough
post-cranial,
> or even relatively complete cranial material to make that
> more than an assumption.
>
> Personally, given the suggested diet and environment, not
> sure what advantage obligate bipedalism could have offered,
> and if the suggested lineage (i.e. along the lines of a
> giant, ground dwelling orang), not sure that it had the
> right "starting material" to evolve into a free-striding
> biped. Perhaps something along the lines
of
> a gorilla's "occasional", vs habitual or obligatory bipedal
> stance would be more appropriate?
>
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html
> http://www.wynja.com/arch/gigantopithecus.html
>
> Regards bk
>
>
The most I'm sure about the big boy is that the shape of the
jaw at the back strongly suggests that the head was carried
erect but the arms might have been very long and the legs very
short as with the orangutan. This animal was known before WW
II and what we know hasn't grown much.