Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
If you're interested in the rest of the article you can pick it up this month or go to http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/
Last edited:
Because of Females: Man becomes Erect.
- Thread starter Never
- Start date
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
Siren, I'm with you on this one, I thought we were going to have a good joke or a yummy picture.
Never, I found it interesting. Now to go read the whole thing.
Never, I found it interesting. Now to go read the whole thing.
Pyper
Lurking
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 12,211
Easy there. I wasn't sure if this was a joking thread because the opinions expressed in this article are *cough* ridiculous. I didn't want to get into anthropology lecture mode if this was meant to be silly. But since you invited me to...
Let's start at the beginning. Ardepithecus ramidus is not "newly discovered" because I had to critique several articles written about it in my first biological anthropology class two years ago. This species has basically been discounted as a "missing link". Time is behind the times.
I conclude that Kent State's Lovejoy is not only an idiot, but a chauvinist. "Man can handle the breadwinning"? Umm, excuse me, but it's been well established that women in primitive societies gather about two thirds of the food. Not to mention that Lovejoy is using this flawed division of labor argument for ancestral monkeys. No modern apes have division of labor, and it's doubtful that human ancestors did until they were nearly fully human.
And women selecting men because they walk upright, leading to more humans walking upright? This logic is flawed as well. If only men benefited from walking upright, then even if they passed those traits onto their daughters, the upright females would die out because there would be no need for them. Thus we would have humans where only the males of the species walked upright.
There are many non-idiotic theories about why humans began to walk upright, the most commonly held being that when the ancestral apes moved from forestland to savannah, they couldn't see over the tall grasses. The ones that could stand up and walk had a better chance of spotting predators that wanted to make a snack out of them, and passed on their upright walking genes onto their children.
Sorry to sound so snobbish about this, but this Lovejoy has one of the worst anthropological theories I have ever heard. Kent State needs to fire this guy, right now.
Let's start at the beginning. Ardepithecus ramidus is not "newly discovered" because I had to critique several articles written about it in my first biological anthropology class two years ago. This species has basically been discounted as a "missing link". Time is behind the times.
I conclude that Kent State's Lovejoy is not only an idiot, but a chauvinist. "Man can handle the breadwinning"? Umm, excuse me, but it's been well established that women in primitive societies gather about two thirds of the food. Not to mention that Lovejoy is using this flawed division of labor argument for ancestral monkeys. No modern apes have division of labor, and it's doubtful that human ancestors did until they were nearly fully human.
And women selecting men because they walk upright, leading to more humans walking upright? This logic is flawed as well. If only men benefited from walking upright, then even if they passed those traits onto their daughters, the upright females would die out because there would be no need for them. Thus we would have humans where only the males of the species walked upright.
There are many non-idiotic theories about why humans began to walk upright, the most commonly held being that when the ancestral apes moved from forestland to savannah, they couldn't see over the tall grasses. The ones that could stand up and walk had a better chance of spotting predators that wanted to make a snack out of them, and passed on their upright walking genes onto their children.
Sorry to sound so snobbish about this, but this Lovejoy has one of the worst anthropological theories I have ever heard. Kent State needs to fire this guy, right now.
Pyper
Lurking
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2000
- Posts
- 12,211
Nope, no tests. Oh, and another bipedalism theory that comes to mind is the body cooling one. I can't remember the specifics of this one, but it involves humans standing up to provide more surface area for the wind to cool the body, because humans aren't as efficient in regulating their body temperatures as other animals.
And, lectures aside, I want pictures of erect men too. Now who's got those sexy Cro-Magnons?
And, lectures aside, I want pictures of erect men too. Now who's got those sexy Cro-Magnons?
doctor_insanus
Splendid Isolation
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2001
- Posts
- 10,904
*ahem*
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
I liked the theory in the article about the berries being higher on the bushes and trees. Explains standing upright and getting taller. The pictures in the article don't show it, but from one of my science classes, these species were very short, if I'm remembering right only about 3 feet tall.
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
I always find it encouraging when non-scientists take an interest in the fascinating developments in science that are going on all around us daily. Good for you, Never – keep reading, keep wondering, keep posting that which strikes you as interesting.
As far as theories on bipedalism, there are more than the two that have been forwarded here, as doubtless most know. In fact, everyone working even peripherially in this field has thier own pet theory, hmmm? Theories are theories. Facts are facts. No reason to get all hot under the collar HERE, among friends, about theories.
Since you're interested, please allow me to give you a few links to interesting and divergent ideas on the evolution of human bipedalism:
Thermoregulatory theory of bipedalism:
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/moya.html
..."bipedal posture in a unshaded savanna environment would be that a bipedal human reduces the area of the body receiving both the direct rays of the sun and the heat radiating from the earth. The bulk of the body is also raised high off the ground, thus benefiting from the cooling effect of the wind."
Reproductive theory of bipedalism
http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l/archives/biomch-l-1994-04/00041.html
..."bipedalism is directly associated with a
reproductive benefit, which is almost completely unrelated to
the physiological costs of bipedal locomotion." ... and ... "first biped would have practiced human-like
bipedalism as a behavioral choice"
Tool-Using/Food-gathering theory of bipedalism:
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/globalchange2/winter2001/lectures/ford1/Ford1.html
"Walking on two legs allows the hands and arms to be free to carry food, to carry infants, and to bear sticks, bones, or stones for protection."
Water theory of bipedalism (okay, this one is crackpot but it's still got its adherents!):
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Morgan.html
"There is some limited evidence that species most frequently obliged to wade through water, such as proboscis monkeys and bonobos in swamp forest areas, are likelier to stand erect and occasionally walk bipedally on land. It has thus transpired that choosing, or being obliged, to walk through water, is the only circumstance known to conduce to sustained erect bipedal locomotion in wild primates. "
The theories go on and on. Shall i continue to give you sites that cater to very/slightly different versions of the THEORIES dealing with bipedalism?
I'm a science teacher, guys, i can go on and on and on and on and on until you're crying and weeping and begging for mercy. They teach us how to do that in Teacher's School, you know, just like you always thought...
I just like it when you guys wonder and think and imagine, however wrong-headed it might be. Just keep doing that. Everything will be okay. (And you play nice, Pyper. It's not *your* pool; if they need to piss in it, so what? Climb out of the pool entirely or point out the etiquette violation nicely.)
As far as theories on bipedalism, there are more than the two that have been forwarded here, as doubtless most know. In fact, everyone working even peripherially in this field has thier own pet theory, hmmm? Theories are theories. Facts are facts. No reason to get all hot under the collar HERE, among friends, about theories.
Since you're interested, please allow me to give you a few links to interesting and divergent ideas on the evolution of human bipedalism:
Thermoregulatory theory of bipedalism:
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/13/moya.html
..."bipedal posture in a unshaded savanna environment would be that a bipedal human reduces the area of the body receiving both the direct rays of the sun and the heat radiating from the earth. The bulk of the body is also raised high off the ground, thus benefiting from the cooling effect of the wind."
Reproductive theory of bipedalism
http://isb.ri.ccf.org/biomch-l/archives/biomch-l-1994-04/00041.html
..."bipedalism is directly associated with a
reproductive benefit, which is almost completely unrelated to
the physiological costs of bipedal locomotion." ... and ... "first biped would have practiced human-like
bipedalism as a behavioral choice"
Tool-Using/Food-gathering theory of bipedalism:
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/globalchange2/winter2001/lectures/ford1/Ford1.html
"Walking on two legs allows the hands and arms to be free to carry food, to carry infants, and to bear sticks, bones, or stones for protection."
Water theory of bipedalism (okay, this one is crackpot but it's still got its adherents!):
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/Morgan.html
"There is some limited evidence that species most frequently obliged to wade through water, such as proboscis monkeys and bonobos in swamp forest areas, are likelier to stand erect and occasionally walk bipedally on land. It has thus transpired that choosing, or being obliged, to walk through water, is the only circumstance known to conduce to sustained erect bipedal locomotion in wild primates. "
The theories go on and on. Shall i continue to give you sites that cater to very/slightly different versions of the THEORIES dealing with bipedalism?
I'm a science teacher, guys, i can go on and on and on and on and on until you're crying and weeping and begging for mercy. They teach us how to do that in Teacher's School, you know, just like you always thought...
I just like it when you guys wonder and think and imagine, however wrong-headed it might be. Just keep doing that. Everything will be okay. (And you play nice, Pyper. It's not *your* pool; if they need to piss in it, so what? Climb out of the pool entirely or point out the etiquette violation nicely.)
Last edited:
doctor_insanus
Splendid Isolation
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2001
- Posts
- 10,904
cymbidia said:
Oh... would you?
Sorry... couldn't resist. Don't worry, I read the rest of your post as well!
Last edited:
