Re: Savanna believers are smart smart smart (Re: Ealine Morgan




Op 16-10-2007 05:01, in artikel JPGdnS-JWInitInanZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@xxxxxxx, Cj
<cwalt@xxxxxxx> schreef:

Op 24-09-2007 15:20, in artikel
1190640026.533387.204400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lee Olsen
<paleocity@xxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:
Yes, and you also knew:
"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)."

Is this meant to be an argument, or what??

No independent line of research converges on this.
Independent lines of thinking prove (& even Bramble & Lieberman confirm)
that humans are slow, inefficient runners who have to sweat too much &
waste
too much water, & that H.er was much too heavy to run after kudus: no
cursorial has heavy bones.

Has anyone considered how American indians captured wild horses after the
Spaniards brought them to this continent? They didn't use tranquilizer
darts... they ran them down. Humans are fantastic long distance runners,
they're fully as efficient as African wild dogs.
Cj

The same crap... My little boy, the first who ran the marathon dropped
dead. We all know that there are good runners in a few remote inland
populations today (Kenyans, Ethiopians...), but only savanna biased fools
conclude from this that our ancestors 2 Ma ran after kudus or horses. Even
Bramble & Lieberman, *the* champions of the endurance running nonsense admit
that humans are only mediocre runners. Read their paper before trying to
say something sensible on this.

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 ?cursorial 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 ?adaptations¹ for walking could just as easily be explained by
wading. One of the frequent ?explanations¹ 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 ?explanations¹
include ³counter rotation², ³thermoregulation² and ³stabilization², but no
comparative data to corroborate these interpretations are provided. In other
words, their ?explanations¹ 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 ?explanations¹ 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 ?vertical¹ 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 ?baboon paradox¹).
Most of Bramble and Lieberman¹s ?adaptations¹ 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 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 quadruped, 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 ?flared¹ 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
1967). 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).

2) H. erectus had less basicranial flexion than H. sapiens, meaning that
the eyes would have been more naturally oriented towards the sky if they
were standing with an upright posture (remembering that we do not know for
certain which posture H. erectus may have preferred when on dry land),
rather than directed more towards the horizon, as is the case when H.
sapiens stands with an upright posture. 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, the less flexed cranial base
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 which
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.

.