On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:14:34 AM UTC-5, Pandora wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:53:50 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com" <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
1987 Nature 325:305-6
"Origin of hominid bipedalism"
Sinclair cs believe that human BPism arose in scavenging hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating savanna ungulates, but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid ancestors.
Not only vultures, but also canid, felid & hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such a niche.
They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth, and did not need to carry stones for cutting carcasses.
Moreover, the BP way of locomotion – whether fast or slow – is inefficient & costly.
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular & the savanna theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas.
Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant:
1) Humans lack sun-reflecting fur, but have thermo-insulative SC fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals.
2) We have a water- & sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, unfit for a dry environment.
3) Our maximal urine concentration is too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal.
4) We need more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time.
5) The fossils of our hominid ancestors or relatives are always found in water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the savanna theory, or why so many anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for BPsm:
they should know there are much better explanations.
I watched the BBC Wildlife Africa series episode Savannah last night: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pwtsj
At the end David Attenborough commented:
"Every day the animals of eastern Africa gamble with there lives. But despite the continual changes they face, their extraordinary
adaptability just tips the odds of survival in their favor.
East-Afica may seem very cruel, but there's nowhere else that provides
such rich opportunities for those that are prepared to take them. And
in the end it was these everchanging savannah's that produced the most adaptable species of all: ourselves"
You think the director pointed a gun at him from behind the camera?
DA changes his tune with the tide.
Savannah & coasts were never the optimal habitat of Homo, but supplemented the lifestyles of forest-floor hominins who were not specialized for arboreal locomotion nor forest canopy refuge as were other primates, due to inhabiting & transporting their
constructed shelters... domeshielded groups evolved "immunity" to most adverse situations, while individuals or pair-bonded couples never did, remaining as vulnerable as any other anthropoid individual or pair. True in all environments, we have no
specialized biological adaptations cf sea otters, hunting dogs, that limit our expansions, we have instead cultural adaptations which always are accompanied by constructed shelters (later clothing) & and handy tools/weapons. Humans adapt to beaches,
plains, glaciers, deserts only because their ground-based sun-shade/rain-shed bug-webbed wind-thinning domeshield nesting habit allowed *better sleep*. Other species must dedicate more resources & calories to sleep safely than we do. We don't have to
climb trees to nap.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)