Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This will probably upset some here.

Humans 'learned to walk in trees'
May 31 01:54 PM US/Eastern

Humans learned to walk upright in the trees, not on the open land, experts have said.

The new theory marks a U-turn in scientific thinking. Previously it was assumed humans only began to stand upright after moving out of the forests on to the wide open savannahs of East Africa.

Moving on two legs was thought to have evolved slowly from the all-fours "knuckle-walking" displayed by chimpanzees and gorillas today. But a study of orang-utan behaviour, published in the journal Science, suggests this is wrong, according to a British team of scientists from Liverpool and Birmingham universities.

They believe knuckle-walking evolved only recently as a way of getting around the forest floor. Walking on two legs, assisted by the support of branches, appeared to be an older trait which evolved from foraging for food in tree tops.

According to the new theory, bipedalism was always a feature of great ape behaviour. Humans inherited it without ever passing through a knuckle-walking phase. Skeletons of early human ancestors show a combination of short legs and long arms, which are adaptations for tree-living.

To understand why walking on two legs might have evolved in tree-living apes, the scientists turned to the Sumatran orang-utan - the sole modern great ape that only inhabits trees. They found that the orang-utan uses bipedalism to fetch food from the small branches of tree tops, and to cross directly from one tree crown to another.

Professor Robin Crompton, from the University of Liverpool, said: "We found that orang-utans walking bipedally on springy branches act much like athletes running on springy tracks - they use extended postures of knee and hip to give them straighter legs."

Other work by the team showed that orang-utans use the natural springiness of branches to save energy, especially when crossing from one tree to another on two legs. "Walking upright on two legs, gripping branches with the feet and balancing themselves by holding or touching higher branches with their hands is actually a very effective way of moving on smaller branches," added Prof Crompton.

"It helps to explain how early human ancestors learned to walk upright whilst living in the trees and how they would have used this way of movement when they left the trees for a life on the ground.

"The traditional theory of human origins states that we evolved to walk upright from ancestors who walked on all fours when on the forest floor. This new study suggests the opposite. Upright walking evolved in the ancestors of all apes, including humans, as a means of foraging for food in the small branches of the tropical forests and these techniques were later used by human ancestors to allow them to adapt to walking on two feet on the ground."
Source
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,588 Posts
No I heard this report yesterday. Just shows what the experts don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Rammstein said:
This will probably upset some here.

Humans 'learned to walk in trees'
May 31 01:54 PM US/Eastern

Humans learned to walk upright in the trees, not on the open land, experts have said.

The new theory marks a U-turn in scientific thinking. Previously it was assumed humans only began to stand upright after moving out of the forests on to the wide open savannahs of East Africa.

Moving on two legs was thought to have evolved slowly from the all-fours "knuckle-walking" displayed by chimpanzees and gorillas today. But a study of orang-utan behaviour, published in the journal Science, suggests this is wrong, according to a British team of scientists from Liverpool and Birmingham universities.

They believe knuckle-walking evolved only recently as a way of getting around the forest floor. Walking on two legs, assisted by the support of branches, appeared to be an older trait which evolved from foraging for food in tree tops.

According to the new theory, bipedalism was always a feature of great ape behaviour. Humans inherited it without ever passing through a knuckle-walking phase. Skeletons of early human ancestors show a combination of short legs and long arms, which are adaptations for tree-living.

To understand why walking on two legs might have evolved in tree-living apes, the scientists turned to the Sumatran orang-utan - the sole modern great ape that only inhabits trees. They found that the orang-utan uses bipedalism to fetch food from the small branches of tree tops, and to cross directly from one tree crown to another.

Professor Robin Crompton, from the University of Liverpool, said: "We found that orang-utans walking bipedally on springy branches act much like athletes running on springy tracks - they use extended postures of knee and hip to give them straighter legs."

Other work by the team showed that orang-utans use the natural springiness of branches to save energy, especially when crossing from one tree to another on two legs. "Walking upright on two legs, gripping branches with the feet and balancing themselves by holding or touching higher branches with their hands is actually a very effective way of moving on smaller branches," added Prof Crompton.

"It helps to explain how early human ancestors learned to walk upright whilst living in the trees and how they would have used this way of movement when they left the trees for a life on the ground.

"The traditional theory of human origins states that we evolved to walk upright from ancestors who walked on all fours when on the forest floor. This new study suggests the opposite. Upright walking evolved in the ancestors of all apes, including humans, as a means of foraging for food in the small branches of the tropical forests and these techniques were later used by human ancestors to allow them to adapt to walking on two feet on the ground."
Source
Ramm,
I don't know why anybody on this site would be upset. We need to remember that it is based on theory = "In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them."
I do not get offended because I beleive in the creation of man not evolution of man. So if you really want to stir the pot, that is all the statement you need to say. OOP's did I do that?
:rotfl: :eek: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
Oh i will stir the pot this time...

In common usage, people often use the word theory..
Sorry man, this isn't common usage, this is science.

From wikipedia:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence

And yes, i would trust the people who do this for a living, who spend their whole life finding out where we came from, then some retard asking for 1/10 of my pay.

Doc is going to hate me for saying that, he already wants to punch me for my cult comment.

I only believe in the

Flying Spaghetti Monster

There are strippers in his heaven, but they have VDs in hell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,172 Posts
Ya guys are all familiar with the "Little Johnnie" jokes where Little Johnnie is always stirring the pot in school, slipping in off-color comments in his assignments and class discussions. I know several Little Johnnie jokes but really can't post any of them here... He's just a natural-born troublemaker!

Anyway, in the future, when I tell or send a "Little Johnnie" story, I think I'm going to change them into "Little Mattie" stories...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,665 Posts
NetAdminWithGun said:
Sorry man, this isn't common usage, this is science.

From wikipedia:

In scientific usage, a theory . . .
What about the above news article made you think it was a theory as opposed to a hypothesis?
:?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,665 Posts
NetAdminWithGun said:
And yes, i would trust the people who do this for a living, who spend their whole life finding out where we came from, then some retard asking for 1/10 of my pay.
You are Jewish, and you have a retarded Rabbi? :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
NetAdminWithGun said:
And yes, i would trust the people who do this for a living, who spend their whole life finding out where we came from, then some retard asking for 1/10 of my pay.
You are Jewish, and you have a retarded Rabbi? :?
Let's see how long it takes for everyone to figure this one out. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
What about the above news article made you think it was a theory as opposed to a hypothesis?
I wasn't talking about the article, I was talking about tj2000's comment of the whole thing being a theory (common usage and implying that evolution was one(common usage))

And the jewish thing i'm confused about, dont you pay tith? And isn't tith suppose to be 10% of your income?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Macktee said:
Ya guys are all familiar with the "Little Johnnie" jokes where Little Johnnie is always stirring the pot in school, slipping in off-color comments in his assignments and class discussions. I know several Little Johnnie jokes but really can't post any of them here... He's just a natural-born troublemaker!

Anyway, in the future, when I tell or send a "Little Johnnie" story, I think I'm going to change them into "Little Mattie" stories...
:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
You know, this is a tough subject because I believe a lot in science but I also believe in a higher power. I have my faith, but I also believe in scientific research and a certain amount of evolution since as humans we do adapt and evolve over time to our surroundings. Its hard to be in the middle on these subjects unfortunately...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
Well i think you do it very well.

I'm not against a "higher power", i'm against organized religion and the whole "All Powerful, All Seeing, All Knowing" crap.

hell we could all just be micro organisms on a dog's back for all i know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
NetAdminWithGun said:
Ever watch southpark? The semen + sea monkeys = society ?
I wish you could actually do that. .....well....minus the semen I guess......

But it's be pretty cool to watch a mini society evolve.
 

·
Romans 10:13
Joined
·
4,632 Posts
It doesn't upset me at all because I don't believe it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
NetAdminWithGun said:
Well i think you do it very well.

I'm not against a "higher power", i'm against organized religion and the whole "All Powerful, All Seeing, All Knowing" crap.

hell we could all just be micro organisms on a dog's back for all i know.
remember Men in Black II in the last scene where they find out the world as we know it is a in a train station locker...

I have my reasons for believing what I do. All I have to say is science has never let me down unlike the "all powerful one"

oh yeah and macktee i like the little mattie stories :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
foshizzle said:
Damn dirty apes :shoot:
That's what I was thinking about. The 'tans were the smart ones then. hehehe.

No offense here either. I'd have to not believe in what I have faith to let what someone else has faith in bother me. :)
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top