Re: Distance Running In Early Erectus

Marc Verhaegen wrote:
Savanna Fantasts' fairy tales:

This is a fairy tale, Marc: "why not move on 4 legs"

Op 09-03-2008 01:38, in artikel 47D33193.41C84499@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Rich
Travsky <traRvEsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef:


http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2008/AAPA2008abstracts.pdf
Skeletal indications for distance locomotion in early Homo erectus.
M.R. Meyer. Department of Anthropology, Chaffey College

The recent discovery of several axial elements attributed to the D2700 hominid
from
Dmanisi offers an opportunity to compare locomotor patterns in early Homo
erectus
with other hominids. Cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebral elements from
D2700
were compared with those from 91 modern humans, 26 fossil hominids, 27
chimpanzees, and 22 gorillas.

Comparative analyses reveal systematic differences between D2700 and its
evolutionary predecessors, suggesting the development of a new locomotor
regime that included extended episodes of running.

The man starts with his conclusion...

So? It's based on their analysis. It's an abstract ;)

First, increased ventral cervical loading in
the Dmanisi fossils matches the load pattern incurred by human runners, where
the
cranium forms an inverse pendulum relative to the thorax, producing anterior
head
acceleration and mandating posterior cervicomuscular counteraction at heel
strike.

The man can no doubt mathematically prove that flies can't fly.
Vague abstract nonsense intended to prove his preconceptions:
- "matches"??

It means exactly that, Marc: matches. Do you know the word?

- no comparoson to other animals, only "incurred by human runners",

Why should other animals be compared? We're dealing with bipedal hominids, not
a hominid and a zebra. Even a jongen can see that.

- assumes "inverse pendulum"

If it isn't an "inverse pendulum" then what is it?

Only unscientific fools would follow such reasonings.

Only unscientific fools fail to understand what they're reading.

Second, uncovertebral morphology in the D2700 indicates the uncoupling of the
head
and torso, releasing a constraint on efficient bipedal running seen in earlier
species.

:-D
Even more absurd. The man sees fossils run..

Like Filler seeing bipedal fossils? :-D

Third, the ratio of estimated stature and biiliac breadth in D2700
reveals
a shift to a linear somatotype well suited to efficient distance running in
humans.

Ridiculous: cursorials have *narrow* bodies.

Ridiculous comparision to other cursorials since we're dealing with bipedal primates.

Fourth, functional aspects of the D2700 axial skeleton reveal an aggregate
morphology
better suited to resist vertical compression, load bearing and distance travel
than australopithecines.

He produces just-so stories: no evidence whatsoever for his preconceptions.

Learn to read Marc:

Cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebral elements from D2700 were compared with those
from 91 modern humans, 26 fossil hominids, 27 chimpanzees, and 22 gorillas.

The Dmanisi axial skeleton reflects a distinct suite of
human
synapomorphisms that can only be compared to humans in functional terms, and
may
indicate the advent of efficient bipedal distance running.

Is this serious??

Yes. This is the sort of comparative approach you always whine about.

This study supports
observations from other aspects of erectine postcrania, such as long legs and
large femoral heads that reflect a greater commitment to long-range
bipedalism.

:-D

The above nonsense is the clearest sign that endurance running is complete
confabulation.

Proof?

Why not use serious comparative evidence??

Like this?

Cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebral elements from D2700 were compared with those
from 91 modern humans, 26 fossil hominids, 27 chimpanzees, and 22 gorillas.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Define a clock
    ... The same is true of a velocity. ... > We can carry a unit of distance and a unit of mass, but doing so for time is ... >>the measurement of the separation between them. ... > process just fine if you had a given, fixed standard by which to compare the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Define a clock
    ... particular measurement that's made by a measuring device called a clock, ... to "distance" *is* a measurement made by a ruler). ... the observability of time depends upon ... > process just fine if you had a given, fixed standard by which to compare the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: comparing depth of field
    ... Would hyperfocal distance be able to ... I would like to get a non-SLR camera ... To compare depth of field, you need to determine how to compare. ... If the size of a sensor is X times the size of another sensor the aperature ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... He was the first to specify "at some ... I got the impression that you were describing the distance between the light signal and another point moving at a constant velocity. ... Of course, in that case, the length is increasing with time, so it is not straightforward to compare the lengths between systems. ... So, the length in S', cT', is contracted when compared to a fixed length in S whose endpoints correspond to the ends of the interval at time T'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • RE: Simple text markup (-> HTML)
    ... Compare this: ... and start thinking about reStructuredText... ... Cheerio, Marc. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
Quantcast