Re: Stonethrowing theory has a competitor/rival theory of Running by Lieberman & Bramble

From: Archimedes Plutonium (a_plutonium_at_iw.net)
Date: 11/20/04 

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:15:34 -0600

Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:27:24 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> --- quoting Reuters in full because I need to debate line for line ---
> Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say
>
> Wed Nov 17, 4:05 PM ET
>
> Science - Reuters
>
>

(huge snip)

>
>
> "Running has substantially shaped human
> evolution. Running made us human -- at least
> in the anatomical sense," Bramble added.

I think as good scientists when facing a choice of two rival competing
theories that the good scientists take the theory that is more powerful.
The theory that explains more and the theory that is the more logical
complete theory.

A choice between Stonethrowing as the creator of humans out of apes or the
choice of Running as the creator factor.

I say more powerful and logically complete is Stonethrowing because this
behaviour by itself can create bipedalism in a primate where before there
was only quadraped. And when we ask whether the Running theory had any role
in creating bipedalism is a obtuse question to begin with because you
obviously need to be a biped to ever become a runner. So in this sense the
wise scientist can easily spot that the 2 rival theories of Stonethrowing
versus Running as shaping and creating humans out of prehumans that the
Stonethrowing theory is the more powerful and logically complete theory.
Stonethrowing subsumes both bipedalism and its later enhancement of
running. So Running is merely an enhancement of bipedalism whereas
Stonethrowing behaviour created bipedalism and once created then running
not only enhances Throwing but enhances bipedalism.

Another aspect is that both Lieberman & Bramble discuss various parts of
the anatomy that have changed and adapted to the needs of Running. But are
those anatomical features enhancements only for Running or are they
enhancements more for Throwing better? For instance they talk about the
buttock and the shortened forearms, longer legs and larger disks. But are
those areas of anatomical change the areas needed for change in order to
Throw with precision?

If the Lieberman and Bramble theory of Running had any credence would ask
whether there were any other anatomical changes of bones and muscles that
were needed for Throwing that had a more dramatic and accelerated change.
Are there parts of the bones and muscles needed to make throwing but not
needed to make running? I believe so and those changes would disprove the
Lieberman and Bramble theory. Changes such as opposable thumb of Rotator
Cuff of loss of browridges and stereoscopic vision.

What I am saying is that the features of bone change that Lieberman and
Bramble have assembled are needed both for Running but also for Throwing
and they are needed more for Throwing. Because the additional bone changes
such as opposable thumb and Rotator Cuff are needed not for Running but for
Throwing.

So if you have a primate that is quadraped and living in trees and you want
to make that primate a throwing and biped and running. Then to make it
throwing you need to change the Rotator Cuff, thumb and finger region, arm
and leg and backbone, eventually buttock. All of these changes create
bipedalism. And once bipedalism is created you can start changing the bones
for running. But the bones for running are a minor subset of the bones
needed for Throwing.

Question: looking at early primates, how much of a anatomy change is needed
to make Throwing with skill and how much is needed to make Running? Is it
not easier to make changes in buttock and shortened forearm than it is to
remove browridges and to make Rotator Cuff and Opposable thumb?

So the bones to do Throwing with skill takes a longer period of time to
change than to change the bones of a biped to be able for the biped to run
proficiently.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies