Foot of Oreopithecus indicates a stationary existence
 

riversleigh~outbackatisa.com.au (John Scanlon) wrote

  > . . . the feet (of Oreopithecus) are derived in a completely
  > opposite manner, with an enormous gap and divergence
  > between the big toe and the others. This has been compared
  > to a bird foot, and would have been quite good for
  > standing bipedally (as well as gripping branches or
  > trunks, like the chimp or indriid lemur foot which have
  > independently evolved long and divergent first toes for
  > climbing), but useless for walking or running in a human
  > manner.

This evidence is consistent with the communally
territorialistic, rock-throwing, stick-wielding ape of my
hypothesis which involves large groups of our earliest
ancestors achieving territorialistic goals as a means of
dealing with the harsh conditions of the dry season of late
miocene monsoon forests of east Africa starting 8 mya. It does
not involve much walking or running and indicates a relatively
stationary existence. In contrast Archi's hypothesis proposes
that rock-throwing behavior involves hunting and defense
against predators, both of which are inconsistent with this
evidence in that these behaviors would also require running
and walking proficiency.

  > The highly derived foot structure makes it unlikely that
  > Oreopithecus is ancestral to anything with a 'straight' foot
  > like ours or Gorilla's.

I don't think it's that simple. The fact that the bone
structure of Oreopithecus is derived (specialized) does not
give us much reason at all to assume that Oreopithecus is not
ancestral to hominids.

Jim

Re: Foot of Oreopithecus indicates a stationary existence
 

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn~yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0411241035.31b86b8e~posting.google.com...
  > riversleigh~outbackatisa.com.au (John Scanlon) wrote
  >
     >> . . . the feet (of Oreopithecus) are derived in a
     >> completely opposite manner, with an enormous gap and
     >> divergence between the big toe and the others. This has
     >> been compared to a bird foot, and would have been quite
     >> good for standing bipedally (as well as gripping branches
     >> or trunks, like the chimp or indriid lemur foot which
     >> have independently evolved long and divergent first toes
     >> for climbing), but useless for walking or running in a
     >> human manner.
  >
  > This evidence is consistent with the communally
  > territorialistic, rock-throwing, stick-wielding ape of my
  > hypothesis which involves large groups of our earliest
  > ancestors achieving territorialistic goals as a means of
  > dealing with the harsh conditions of the dry season of late
  > miocene monsoon forests of east Africa starting 8 mya. It
  > does not involve much walking or running and indicates a
  > relatively stationary existence. In contrast Archi's
  > hypothesis proposes that rock-throwing behavior involves
  > hunting and defense against predators, both of which are
  > inconsistent with this evidence in that these behaviors
  > would also require running and walking proficiency.
  >
     >> The highly derived foot structure makes it unlikely that
     >> Oreopithecus is ancestral to anything with a 'straight'
     >> foot like ours or Gorilla's.
  >
  > I don't think it's that simple. The fact that the bone
  > structure of Oreopithecus is derived (specialized) does not
  > give us much reason at all to assume that Oreopithecus is
  > not ancestral to hominids.
  >
  > Jim

They think it went to far to ever swing back. It doesn't look
much like what they think grandpa and grandma's foot looked
like. Something similar without the foot problem is a more
likely ancestor.

Re: Foot of Oreopithecus indicates a stationary existence
 

"deowll" <deowll~bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<%9bpd.44852$z3.3820~bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
  > "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn~yahoo.com> wrote in message
  > news:ac6a5059.0411241035.31b86b8e~posting.google.com...
     > > riversleigh~outbackatisa.com.au (John Scanlon) wrote
     > >
     > >> . . . the feet (of Oreopithecus) are derived in a
     > >> completely opposite manner, with an enormous gap and
     > >> divergence between the big toe and the others. This has
     > >> been compared to a bird foot, and would have been quite
     > >> good for standing bipedally (as well as gripping
     > >> branches or trunks, like the chimp or indriid lemur
     > >> foot which have independently evolved long and
     > >> divergent first toes for climbing), but useless for
     > >> walking or running in a human manner.
     > >
     > > This evidence is consistent with the communally
     > > territorialistic, rock-throwing, stick-wielding ape of my
     > > hypothesis which involves large groups of our earliest
     > > ancestors achieving territorialistic goals as a means of
     > > dealing with the harsh conditions of the dry season of
     > > late miocene monsoon forests of east Africa starting 8
     > > mya. It does not involve much walking or running and
     > > indicates a relatively stationary existence. In contrast
     > > Archi's hypothesis proposes that rock-throwing behavior
     > > involves hunting and defense against predators, both of
     > > which are inconsistent with this evidence in that these
     > > behaviors would also require running and walking
     > > proficiency.
     > >
     > >> The highly derived foot structure makes it unlikely that
     > >> Oreopithecus is ancestral to anything with a 'straight'
     > >> foot like ours or Gorilla's.
     > >
     > > I don't think it's that simple. The fact that the bone
     > > structure of Oreopithecus is derived (specialized) does
     > > not give us much reason at all to assume that Oreopithecus
     > > is not ancestral to hominids.
     > >
     > > Jim
  >
  > They think it went to far to ever swing back. It doesn't
  > look much like what they think grandpa and grandma's foot
  > looked like.

Well, we wouldn't expect it to since it is still a tree
dwelling creature, at least part of the time (night?).

  > Something similar without the foot problem is a more likely
  > ancestor.

How would you supposedly know this? And where is the data
that you, supposedly, employed to arrive at this conclusion?
Why do you not present this data to us? (Hopefully it's not
a secret.)

Jim

Re: Foot of Oreopithecus indicates a stationary existence
 

"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn~yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0411242343.12405674~posting.google.com...
  > "deowll" <deowll~bellsouth.net> wrote in message
  > news:<%9bpd.44852$z3.3820~bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
     >> "Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn~yahoo.com> wrote in message
     >> news:ac6a5059.0411241035.31b86b8e~posting.google.com...
     >> > riversleigh~outbackatisa.com.au (John Scanlon) wrote
     >> >
     >> >> . . . the feet (of Oreopithecus) are derived in a
     >> >> completely opposite manner, with an enormous gap and
     >> >> divergence between the big toe and the others. This
     >> >> has been compared to a bird foot, and would have been
     >> >> quite good for standing bipedally (as well as gripping
     >> >> branches or trunks, like the chimp or indriid lemur
     >> >> foot which have independently evolved long and
     >> >> divergent first toes for climbing), but useless for
     >> >> walking or running in a human manner.
     >> >
     >> > This evidence is consistent with the communally
     >> > territorialistic, rock-throwing, stick-wielding ape of my
     >> > hypothesis which involves large groups of our earliest
     >> > ancestors achieving territorialistic goals as a means of
     >> > dealing with the harsh conditions of the dry season of
     >> > late miocene monsoon forests of east Africa starting 8
     >> > mya. It does not involve much walking or running and
     >> > indicates a relatively stationary existence. In contrast
     >> > Archi's hypothesis proposes that rock-throwing behavior
     >> > involves hunting and defense against predators, both of
     >> > which are inconsistent with this evidence in that these
     >> > behaviors would also require running and walking
     >> > proficiency.
     >> >
     >> >> The highly derived foot structure makes it unlikely that
     >> >> Oreopithecus is ancestral to anything with a 'straight'
     >> >> foot like ours or Gorilla's.
     >> >
     >> > I don't think it's that simple. The fact that the bone
     >> > structure of Oreopithecus is derived (specialized) does
     >> > not give us much reason at all to assume that
     >> > Oreopithecus is not ancestral to hominids.
     >> >
     >> > Jim
     >>
     >> They think it went to far to ever swing back. It doesn't
     >> look much like what they think grandpa and grandma's foot
     >> looked like.
  >
  > Well, we wouldn't expect it to since it is still a tree
  > dwelling creature, at least part of the time (night?).
  >
     >> Something similar without the foot problem is a more likely
     >> ancestor.
  >
  > How would you supposedly know this? And where is the data
  > that you, supposedly, employed to arrive at this conclusion?
  > Why do you not present this data to us? (Hopefully it's not
  > a secret.)
  >
  > Jim

I think you have already read the material about the derived
nature of the remains. I was merely pointing out that with the
thin knowlege we have of the fossil record something lacking
the problem features is most likely waiting to be discovered.

Louis Leakey faced the same problem with his first Zanji find.
He knew it didn't look right due to the big molars and the
crest but until habilis showed up he went with it.