PDA

View Full Version : Origin Of Bipedalism Seems Most Closely Tied To Environmental Changes


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Tonyk
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:17
Found this at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020509074029.htm

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- During the past 100 years, scientists have
tossed around a great many hypotheses about the evolutionary
route to bipedalism, and what inspired our prehuman ancestors
to stand up straight and amble off on two feet. Now, after an
extensive study of evolutionary, anatomical and fossil
evidence, a team of paleoanthropologists has narrowed down the
number of tenable hypotheses to explain the origin of
bipedalism and our prehuman ancestors' method of navigating
their world before they began walking upright.

The hypothesis they found the most support for regarding the
origin of bipedalism is the one that argues our ancestors
began walking upright largely in response to environmental
changes -- in particular, to the growing incidence of open
spaces and the way that changed the distribution of food.

In response to periods of cooling and drying, which thinned
out dense forests and produced "mosaics" of forests, woodlands
and grasslands, it seems likely that "some apes maintained a
forest-oriented adaptation, while others may have begun to
exploit forest margins and grassy woodlands," said
paleoanthropologist Brian Richmond, lead author in the new
study. The process of increasing commitment to bipediality
probably involved "an extended and complex opening of
habitats, rather than a single, abrupt transition from dense
forest to open savanna," he said.

Richmond, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
with paleoanthropologists David Begun from the University of
Toronto and David Strait from the New York College of
Osteopathic Medicine, describe their findings, which involved
a comprehensive review and analysis of the five leading
hypotheses on the origin of bipedalism, in a recent issue of
the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. Other hypotheses that
remain viable, according to the team: "freeing" the hands for
carrying or for some kind of tool use, and an increased
emphasis on foraging from branches of small fruit trees, which
is the context in which modern chimpanzees spend the most time
on two legs.

For their study, the researchers combined data from
biomechanics -- movement, posture and stesses in bones and
joints -- and from bone growth and development. They found
that our prehuman ancestors had terrestrial features in the
hands and feet, climbing features throughout the skeleton, and
knuckle-walking features in the wrist and hand; that finger
bone curvature is responsive to changes in arboreal activity
during growth, lending support to the hypothesis that many
early hominid species, although bipedal, still climbed trees.
Evidence from the wrist joint "suggests that the earliest
humans evolved bipedalism from an ancestor adapted for
knuckle-walking on the ground and climbing in trees."

The YPA article, according to Richmond, is "the first attempt
in decades to bring together all of the available evidence for
the argument that the earliest human biped evolved from
ancestors that both knuckle-walked and climbed trees, rather
than from ancestors living exclusively in trees and 'coming
down from the trees,' or walking on the ground in ways similar
to modern baboons."

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found at
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/05bipedal.html TonyK

Jim McGinn
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:17
"TonyK" <tonykaye@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:0PwC8.16$eR3.24990@news.uswest.net...
> Found this at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020509074029.htm

> The hypothesis they found the most support for regarding
> the origin of bipedalism is the one that argues our
> ancestors began walking upright largely in response to
> environmental changes

Obviously. (But all evolutionary changes are in response to
environmental changes.)

> -- in particular, to the growing incidence of open spaces
> and the way that changed the distribution of food. In
> response to periods of cooling and drying, which thinned
> out dense forests and produced "mosaics" of forests,
> woodlands and grasslands,

It also would have produced seasonal dessication, an element
that was nonexistent before the advent of the above mentioned
environmental change. (Even now seasonal dessication is more
evident in Africa than it is in any other place in the world.)
Seasonal dessication caused our chimpanzee-like ancestors to
become more territorial (in the dry season those that didn't
have access to resources died). One of the implications of
this shift to territorialism, and one that is also the result
of the "mosaic" nature of the habitat, was that our ancestors
became more communal at these remaining "mosaic" patches of
forest and woodland which served as the first hominid
communities. It was in the context of this communal setting
that our ancestors began to be selected for human attributes,
including bipedalism, which is most directly traceable to
culture and communicativeness but is also intertwined with mob
mentality--wielding sticks and stones--to achieve collective
(communal) territorial goals.

The authors of this study, therefore, completely overlooked
the most important factor in this new habitat, seasonal
dessication. Without seasonal dessication those that were more
territorial would not have had a selective advantage over
those that were less territorial. And if territoriality did
not evolve then these "mosaic" patches of remaining forest
would not have--could not have--resulted in hominid
communities. And if hominid communities did not emerge then
human evolution would not have occurred. And if human
evolution did not occur then bipedalism would not have begun
to be selected.

<snip>

> a comprehensive review and analysis of the five leading
> hypotheses . . .

<snip>

These "leading hypotheses" all start with the simpleminded
assumption--an assumption that is completely unsupported by
evidence--that bipedalism would have evolved independently
from other hominid attributes.

> The YPA article, according to Richmond, is "the first
> attempt in decades to bring together all of the available
> evidence . . .

<snip>

*All* of the available evidence? Is seasonal dessication not
available?

Jim McGinn

"When everybody thinks alike nobody thinks." Bill Walton

Firstjois
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:17
"TonyK" <tonykaye@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:0PwC8.16$eR3.24990@news.uswest.net...
: Found this at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020509074029.htm
:
: CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- During the past 100 years, scientists
: have tossed
around a great many hypotheses about the
: evolutionary route to bipedalism, and what inspired our
: prehuman
ancestors to stand up straight and amble off on two feet.
: Now, after an extensive study of evolutionary, anatomical
: and fossil
evidence, a team of paleoanthropologists has narrowed
: down the number of tenable hypotheses to explain the origin
: of bipedalism
and our prehuman ancestors' method of navigating
: their world before they began walking upright.
:
: The hypothesis they found the most support for regarding the
: origin of
bipedalism is the one that argues our ancestors began
: walking upright largely in response to environmental
: changes -- in
particular, to the growing incidence of open spaces and the
: way that changed the distribution of food.
:
[snip]

How would you relate this to homeogenes or Hox genes? Seems
like the change would be an easy one rather than a massive
event with lots of changes and problems.

Jois

Pete
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:17
on Thu, 09 May 2002 15:43:56 GMT, TonyK
<tonykaye@qwest.net> sez:

` Found this at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020509074029.htm
` [...] ` ` The hypothesis they found the most support for
regarding the origin of ` bipedalism is the one that argues
our ancestors began walking upright ` largely in response to
environmental changes -- in particular, to the ` growing
incidence of open spaces and the way that changed the `
distribution of food. ` ` In response to periods of cooling
and drying, which thinned out dense ` forests and produced
"mosaics" of forests, woodlands and grasslands, it ` seems
likely that "some apes maintained a forest-oriented
adaptation, ` while others may have begun to exploit forest
margins and grassy ` woodlands," said paleoanthropologist
Brian Richmond, lead author in the ` new study. The process of
increasing commitment to bipediality probably ` involved "an
extended and complex opening of habitats, rather than ` a
single, abrupt transition from dense forest to open savanna,"
he said. ` ` Richmond, from the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, with ` paleoanthropologists David Begun from
the University of Toronto and ` David Strait from the New York
College of Osteopathic Medicine, describe ` their findings,
which involved a comprehensive review and analysis of ` the
five leading hypotheses on the origin of bipedalism, in a
recent ` issue of the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. Other
hypotheses that ` remain viable,

"Other"? You mean that previous paragraph summarizes their
chosen hypothesis?! Either the reporting is badly deficient,
or these guys have selected a non-hypothesis. It's not nearly
enough to say "apes began to exploit forest margins...and
therefore became bipedal". Might as well fill in the ellipsis
with "and then by magic".

according to the team: "freeing" the hands for carrying `
or for some kind of tool use, and an increased emphasis on
foraging from ` branches of small fruit trees, which is the
context in which modern ` chimpanzees spend the most time
on two legs.

So, the only factor that has some empirical evidence behind it
is filed as an also-ran? They couldn't even commit to
enfolding it in some kind of vague combination? ` ` For their
study, the researchers combined data from biomechanics -- `
movement, posture and stesses in bones and joints -- and from
bone ` growth and development. They found that our prehuman
ancestors had ` terrestrial features in the hands and feet,
climbing features throughout ` the skeleton, and
knuckle-walking features in the wrist and hand; that ` finger
bone curvature is responsive to changes in arboreal activity `
during growth, lending support to the hypothesis that many
early hominid ` species, although bipedal, still climbed
trees. Evidence from the wrist ` joint "suggests that the
earliest humans evolved bipedalism from an ` ancestor adapted
for knuckle-walking on the ground and climbing in ` trees."

I wonder if they had access to the as yet unpublished detailed
analyses from orrorin and the other `new' finds. ` ` The YPA
article, according to Richmond, is "the first attempt in `
decades to bring together all of the available evidence for
the argument ` that the earliest human biped evolved from
ancestors that both ` knuckle-walked and climbed trees, rather
than from ancestors living ` exclusively in trees and 'coming
down from the trees,' or walking on the ` ground in ways
similar to modern ` baboons." ` ` Editor's Note: The original
news release can be found at `
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/02/05bipedal.html ` ` TonyK

--
==========================================================================

vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

Pete
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:17
on Thu, 09 May 2002 17:42:11 GMT, firstjois
<firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> sez: ` ` ` How would you relate
this to homeogenes or Hox genes? Seems like the ` change would
be an easy one rather than a massive event with lots of `
changes and problems. ` The Hox genes control things like
where the head is relative to the thorax, how many limbs there
are in toto, etc., they don't so much manage the detail of
things like posture. Not to say it couldn't have been a
relatively small number of mutations, but I don't think that
woould be the right location. `

--
==========================================================================

vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

John Burns
Thu, Jul-18-02, 01:17
Of course the hox genes would -- very definitely -- change
things like posture. If they altered the aspect of the hallux,
the 'S' bend in the spine, the tip of the pelvis Etc Etc..
They would also alter the folds in the cortices of the brain
structure, foramun magnus and the vocal chords.