Savanna Fools

[Marc Verha]

The *whole* savanna nonsense is exclusively based on a few
ostrich shells next to hominid finds (forgetting the numerous
shellfish etc.next to Homo), on riverside butchering of bovids
2.5 Ma (most likely drowned during the trek) & on a few human
hunters that with drinking water, tools etc. sometimes
endurance-run after kudus.

And all this because Dart in 1925 thought that the Taung child
was found in a dry country (now proven to be wrong).

:-D

The Savanna Fools are as ridiculous as the the geologists who
constructed land bridges between France & Florida to explain
Hipparions in both places.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 6, 4:56 pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:

No reply.

FYI:

http://tinyurl.com/2n8y2n

Carl Zimmer Science 2004

"It may come as a surprise to hear that humans excel in
running. Obviously, a leopard can leave us in the dust in a
short sprint. But over longer distances leopards and most
other mammals flag. "Most mammals can't sustain a gallop over
10 to 15 minutes," says Lieberman. Humans, on the otherhand,
can continue running for hours while using relatively little
energy. "Humans are phenomanenal endurance runners, in terms
of speed, cost, and distance," says Lieberman. You can
actually outrun a pony easily." And yet, he points out, "no
other primates out there endurance run."

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/tarafeat.htm "The public was
amazed at the prowess of the runners and even more so when the
papers reported that there were better ones at home. One of
them was called "The Tiger of the Sierra"; he had run for
three consecutive days that same year, near Norogachic,
Chihuahua, covering a distance of 300 kilometers, or 186
miles, of mountainous country."

"Specifically, longer, more linear bodies are better adapted
for heat loss in dry open environments, where evaporative heat
loss from sweating is very effective. All modern-day tall
"elongated" African (e.g., Nilotics) are restricted to such
environments." Alan Walker and Richard Leakey editors. 1993
The Nariokotome Homo Erectus Skeleton. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge

"Two indepandent lines of research converged on the conclusion
that early Homo was an efficient runner, the first human
species to be so Leakey (1994:55)."

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.natur-
alhistorymag.com/1206/1206_samplings.html
Mr. Karoha runs down another ill-equipped-for-savanna kudu.

"The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied grasslands and
open scrub- and wood-lands, as in East Africa. Homo
ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is associated
with hot and dry conditions, and open grasslands; its
post-cranial anatomy, with its long limbs was geared to
long-distance walking across open ground, and to heat
dispersal through upright posture (Dennell 2003:442)."

http://tinyurl.com/7u5wo " In fact, he walked and ran with
better mechanics than we do today. The mechanics of his
femur, femur head, pelvis, and lower back are superior to
those of today. We have had to sacrifice some of that
efficiency of walking and running to give birth to children
with larger brains."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17584912/ "Just because humans
have long legs doesn't make us less aggressive. Rather, the
longer legs are a product of humans' specialization for
distance running."

"He showed that even the slowest human runners could, with
even a slight head start, outrun lions, cheetahs, leopards,
hyenas, and wild dogs, not by speed, but by out distancing
them (Donald Mitchell)." QUARRY CLOSING IN ON THE MISSING LINK
by Boaz, Noel T. 1993 (ISBN:
0029045010)

"From our spring-loaded ligaments to our muscular behinds to
our ability to sweat, the human body took the ideal shape of a
long-distance runner starting some 2 million years ago, the
researchers say. The long, lean build helped us scavenge
widely scattered kills and could also have been an advantage
when hunting down prey over long distances." "We're lousy
sprinters, but we're really great long-distance runners," said
Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist at Harvard University.

http://tinyurl.com/dcxyw

"A long-distance runner has beaten a leading endurance
racehorse over a distance of 80 kilometres in the United Arab
Emirates."

[Marc Verha]

Some netloon who think humans run 60 km/hr:
> "It may come as a surprise to hear that humans excel in
> running.

:-D

Inform, my boys: Google "Open plain or waterside?":

Endurance Running or Littoral Locomotion in Archaic Homo?

Bramble and Lieberman (2004), in a much-discussed review
article in Nature, cite a number of derived Homo features they
claim to be adaptations for more efficient endurance running
in arid, open habitats. However, while some of these
supposedly Œcursorial adaptations¹ appear first in the fossil
record in H. habilis, others appear first in H. erectus, and
others still in H. sapiens, suggesting a much more complex
story than proposed by Bramble and Lieberman. Their
conclusions are reached without systematic comparisons with
other animals (including endurance runners) and with general
comparisons restricted to fossil hominids and Pan. Since
convergent traits are strong indicators of evolution in
similar environments (Bender 1999), a systematic comparison
with a broad range of animals with a variety of locomotor
strategies would have been more informative. In addition,
discussion of possible locomotion styles is restricted to
walking and running, with no consideration at all given to
activities such as wading, swimming or underwater foraging,
yet humans are regular waders and more accomplished swimmers
and divers than other primates. Most of the list¹s
Œadaptations¹ for walking could just as easily be explained by
wading. One of the frequent Œexplanations¹ in the list is
³stress reduction², a reference to the vertical posture of
humans with the weight resting on two legs. But this says
nothing about endurance running, with standing, wading,
walking or short distance running all using a similar posture,
and therefore all requiring stress reduction. Other
Œexplanations¹ include ³counter rotation², ³thermoregulation²
and ³stabilization², but no comparative data to corroborate
these interpretations are provided. In other words, their
Œexplanations¹ are ad hoc suppositions, applied to one example
(human ancestors) without any consideration as to whether
these supposed adaptations are seen in other animals, which
means their Œexplanations¹ are statistically invalid (n=1).
Long legs, and possibly shortened forearms, could be seen as
running adaptations, but these are just as typical of wading
and swimming species compared with runners (Hildebrand
1974: 584, Bender 1999). In a waterside scenario, wading and
swimming would be preadaptative to the humanlike
Œvertical¹ locomotion that Bramble and Lieberman (2004)
believe to be a direct adaptation to endurance running.
In our view, frequent terrestrial locomotion, whether
for walking or for (relatively slow) running, was more
recent (Homo sapiens) and could not be derived directly
from an ancestral locomotion in forests, whether on the
ground or in the branches, because in that case a more
baboon-like locomotion would be expected (the Œbaboon
paradox¹).

Table 4. Bramble and Lieberman¹s (2004) list of supposedly
derived features of the human skeleton with so-called
cursorial functions

Functional role in running & walking according to
Bramble & Lieberman
(1975) W = walk R = run Earliest evidence Comparative data.
More likely alternatives in our opinion. NSS = not
seen in savannah animals. NSC
= not seen in cursorial animals. NUL = not unexpected in
= littoral animals.
Enlarged posterior & anterior semicircular canals Head/body
stabilization R H. erectus NSS as far as known. NUL, e.g.,
for equilibrium during descent & ascent in diving. Requires
more comparative data. Expanded venous circulation of
neurocranium Thermoregulation R>W H. erectus NSS. NSC. NUL.
Skull base & paravertebral venous networks are typical of
diving species. More balanced head Head stabilization R H.
habilis NSS. NSC. Could be advantageous in frequent
standing rather than running. Alined build NUL. Nuchal
ligament Head stabilization R H. habilis NUL, e.g., in
pronograde swimming. Short snout Head stabilization R>W H.
habilis NSS. NSC. Snout shortening has to do with
mastication rather than head stabilisation. Tall, narrow
body form Thermoregulation R>W H. erectus NUL: long legs
are typical of wading species. Decoupled head & pectoral
girdle Counter-rotation of trunk vs head R
H. erectus? NUL: waterside as well as a mosaic milieus require
versatile locomotions. Low, wide shoulders Counter-rotation
of trunk vs hips R H. erectus? NUL: Œlow¹ could be for
wading as well as for underwater swimming. No relation to
running. Forearm shortening Counter-rotation of trunk - H.
erectus NUL: typical of frequently swimming species. Narrow
thorax Counter-rotation of trunk vs hips R H. erectus?
Dorso-ventrally narrow. NSS, NSC, NUL: typical of shallow
water dwellers,
H.a., platypus, hippo, beaver. Narrow & tall waist between
iliac crest & ribcage Counter-rotation of trunk vs hips R
H. erectus? NUL: waterside as well as mosaic milieus
require a wide range of locomotions. Narrow pelvis
Counter-rotation of trunk vs hips Stress reduction R
R>W Homo? H. erectus had still flaring ilia, presumably
R>for femoral
abduction: NSS, NSC, NUL. Expanded lumbar central surface area
Stress reduction R>W H. erectus Suggests vertical body. NUL,
e.g., for wading. Enlarged iliac pillar Stress reduction R>W
H. erectus Idem. Stabilized sacroiliac joint Trunk
stabilization R H. erectus Idem. Expanded surface area for mm.
erector spinae origin Trunk stabilization R H. erectus Idem.
Expanded surface area for m. gluteus maximus origin Trunk
stabilization R H. erectus Idem. Long legs Stride length R>W
H. erectus NUL, typical of wading species. Expanded hindlimb
joint surface area Stress reduction R>W H. erectus Suggests
vertical body. NUL, e.g., for wading. Shorter femoral neck
Stress reduction R>W H. sapiens Not seen in
I. erectus. Presumably post-littoral. Long Achilles tendon
Energy storage Shock absorption R Homo? Comparative data
are needed. Typical cursorial species are not plantigrade.
NUL. Plantar arch (passively stabilized) Energy storage
Shock absorbtion Powered plantar-flexion R R>W R>W Homo?
NSS. NSC. NUL: plantigrady for wading and swimming.
Enlarged tuber calcaneus Stress reduction R>W Homo?
Cursorials do not have enlarged heels. NSS. NSC. NUL.
Close-packed calcaneo-cuboid joint Energy storage Stability
during plantarflexion R>W OH-8 Comparative data are needed.
NUL. Permanently adducted hallux Stability during
plantarflexion R>W OH-8 NUL: wading, swimming. Short toes
Stability during plantarflexion Distal mass reduction R>W
OH-8 NSS. NSC. NUL: metatarsal lengthening and toe
shortening is to be expected in swimming & wading.

Most of Bramble and Lieberman¹s Œadaptations¹ are not what we
would expect in a cursorial (running) animal. For example,
their list includes ³enlarged posterior and anterior
semicircular canals², but there are no comparisons with, for
instance, giraffes (heads high above the ground), gibbons
(fast and versatile locomotion), kangaroos (cursorial bipeds),
or swimming or diving species. It is conceivable in fact that
the frequent change of posture seen when diving for seafood
(descending and ascending) required a different labyrinth
structure, and that the larger Homo erectus labyrinth was
adapted to terrestrial walking and running as well as to
wading, swimming and diving locomotions. There is no
indication that an ³expanded venous circulation of
neurocranium² had anything to do with thermoregulation, but
there is long-standing evidence of expanded venous networks in
diving species (Slijper 1936). More balanced heads and short
snouts are not seen in cursorial species, whether bi- or
quadrupedal, and low shoulders are to be expected in wading
and underwater swimming. What Bramble and Lieberman refer to
as ³narrow body form², ³narrow thorax² and ³narrow pelvis² is
not clear to us: compared to most primates, humans have a
relatively broad thorax and pelvis (laterolaterally), and this
was even more so in the case of australopithecines. In our
opinion, the combination of Œflared¹ iliac blades and long and
relatively horizontal femoral necks as seen in Homo erectus
indicates well-developed ad- and abduction, which is obviously
not an adaptation for running, but would not be unexpected and
indeed would be advantageous for a species that had to
regularly wade, tread water, swim or climb. In Homo sapiens
the pelvis (bi-iliac diameter) did become narrower and the
femoral necks shorter and more vertical, and we agree with
Bramble and Lieberman that this could be related to more
frequent terrestrial locomotion. Plantar arches, enlarged
tubera calcanei, close-packed calcaneo-cuboid joints and short
toes are not seen in cursorials, whether bi- or quadruped, to
the contrary: running species are typically unguli- or
digiti-, not plantigrade, and typically have elongated toes.
In conclusion, comparative data suggest that none of the
features described by Bramble and Lieberman (2004) are typical
either of savannah dwellers or frequently running animals,
whether slow or fast. Until the features are considered in the
context of swimming and wading as well as terrestrial
movement, their interpretations should be considered with
extreme caution. As it is, there is no obvious reason why any
of the features cited could not have been of advantage in a
littoral environment. We do not deny that humans today are
adapted to terrestrial locomotion including walking and
moderate running, but in our opinion the peculiar human
anatomy is not directly derivable from a typical primate
ancestor who moved from closed to more open, arid habitats. At
least two conspicuous anatomical features of Homo erectus are
notably not included in the list of features cited by Bramble
and Lieberman (2004).

1) Homo erectus typically has a more robust, and therefore
heavier, skeleton than all other (fossil and extant)
primates, including H. sapiens and the other apes. One of
its defining characteristics is the shape and size of the
femoral bone, which shows cortex thickening and densening
(pachyostosis) and a narrow cavity of the bone marrow
(medullary stenosis). The cranial bones, especially the
posterior part (the occiput), are also notably thicker
than in other primates including H. sapiens. Unusually
heavy bones would be a disadvantage for a species relying
on endurance running, and are not seen in running mammals
such as dogs or horses, whereas for a species collecting
sessile food from the water¹s edge, including underwater
foraging, they could have been a significant advantage.
Human divers such as the Ama of Korea frequently use
weights to help them descend (Hong and Rahn
2). Slow-diving mammals for sessile foods typically have
medullary stenosis and pachyostosis to a higher degree than
in H. erectus (walruses, dugongs and fossil littoral species
such as Kolponomos, Odobenocetops and some Thalassocnus
species), while fast-diving mammals for mobile prey have
light-weight bones (dolphins and sealions).

3) Archaic Homo had a lower and longer brain skull than H.
sapiens, with generally less flexed cranial base and with
the eyes somewhat more in front of the brain (requiring a
supraorbital torus for eye protection) rather than fully
below the frontal brain as in H. sapiens, meaning that
the eyes would have been more naturally oriented towards
the sky if they were standing with an upright posture,
rather than directed more towards the horizon as is the
case when H. sapiens stands upright. This would be a
disadvantage for a species relying on endurance running
because, among other things, more energy would be needed
to look at where the feet were making contact with the
ground. In a diving position, as well as in a more
procumbent body position while wading for food, for
example, this would have resulted in the eyes being more
naturally oriented in the direction the individual was
moving (i.e., in the case of swimming and diving, head
first through the water). We are not aware of any models
that suggest early Homo ran with a bent hip posture, but
we do note that human sprinters generally run with the
body leaning forward.

Within many contemporary H. sapiens populations there are
individuals who are capable of long distance running, but
compared to typical savannah species, humans are slow and
inefficient (Figure 4). Moreover, recent research suggests
that endurance training in athletes sometimes causes cardial
arrhythmias and sudden death (Ector et al. 2007). Even Bramble
and Lieberman (2004) admit that ³humans are mediocre runners
in several respects² and ³running is more costly for humans
than for most other mammals². And since H. erectus generally
had, for instance, heavier bones than H sapiens and longer
femoral necks, it must have been an even less efficient
cursorial than extant H. sapiens.

[Lee Olsen]

On Apr 7, 2:11=A0pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> Some netloon who think humans run 60 km/hr:

Do the math:

http://tinyurl.com/2n8y2n

Carl Zimmer Science 2004

"It may come as a surprise to hear that humans excel in
running. Obviously, a leopard can leave us in the dust in a
short sprint. But over longer distances leopards and most
other mammals flag. "Most mammals can't sustain a gallop over
10 to 15 minutes," says Lieberman. Humans, on the otherhand,
can continue running for hours while using relatively little
energy. "Humans are phenomanenal endurance runners, in terms
of speed, cost, and distance," says Lieberman. You can
actually outrun a pony easily." And yet, he points out, "no
other primates out there endurance run."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/full/nature03-
052.html Homo Dennis M. Bramble & Daniel E. Lieberman

Abstract "Striding bipedalism is a key derived behaviour of
hominids that possibly originated soon after the divergence of
the chimpanzee and human lineages. Although bipedal gaits
include walking and running, running is generally considered
to have played no major role in human evolution because
humans, like apes, are poor sprinters compared to most
quadrupeds. Here we assess how well humans perform at
sustained long-distance running, and review the physiological
and anatomical bases of endurance running capabilities in
humans and other mammals. Judged by several criteria, humans
perform remarkably well at endurance running, thanks to a
diverse array of features, many of which leave traces in the
skeleton. The fossil evidence of these features suggests that
endurance running is a derived capability of the genus Homo,
originating about 2 million years ago, and may have been
instrumental in the evolution of the human body form."

Got it yet?