why humans are not primates

[: D]

You don't get to make up your own medical facts. And what's with this "except for the toes" bit? Where does that come from?

Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) was already upright bipedal walking. The evolution of the foot was really minor . . . the big toe, used for pushing off in our walking style, moved to a straight forward position instead of being opposable; the other toes diminished, became vestigial. The foot developed an arch. Even today, the older, flat footed pattern remains in many people. All evidence of evolution.

Its a medical fact that you have individual muscles for lifting each toe and most of them you cannot even activate. Those toe lifting muscles count as useless vestiges. (Not all vestiges are completely useless.)

talking of making up medical facts....
could you please point out these foot bones you were waxing lyrical about on Lucy...



Ill try squinting....

nope......
you will have to point them out.
(we will come back to your other medical facts after we sort this one out.)

: )

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

talking of making up medical facts....
could you please point out these foot bones you were waxing lyrical about on Lucy...



Ill try squinting....

nope......
you will have to point them out.
(we will come back to your other medical facts after we sort this one out.)

: )

I don't recall waxing lyrical about Lucy's foot bones. Do you often make up stuff the other guy said? However, while we don't have foot bones from the individual named "Lucy" we do have bones from other examples of A. Afarensis. Being the honest person you are, you will never post that objection to the shape of their feet again.

Here's a more complete discussion of the feet and ambulatory habits of A. Farensis:

http://johnhawks.net/explainer/early-hominins/feet-australopithecus-afarensis/

 

[Larniavc]

Did your wife once fall, as atheists did, for the gag where squirrels flew, Pluto was[n't] our 9th planet, and Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug too?

Or was it just penguins?

Just the Penguins.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't recall waxing lyrical about Lucy's foot bones. Do you often make up stuff the other guy said? However, while we don't have foot bones from the individual named "Lucy" we do have bones from other examples of A. Afarensis. Being the honest person you are, you will never post that objection to the shape of their feet again.

Here's a more complete discussion of the feet and ambulatory habits of A. Farensis:

http://johnhawks.net/explainer/early-hominins/feet-australopithecus-afarensis/

Oh, we have footprints.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just the Penguins.

Just wondering.

 

[: D]

I don't recall waxing lyrical about Lucy's foot bones. Do you often make up stuff the other guy said? However, while we don't have foot bones from the individual named "Lucy" we do have bones from other examples of A. Afarensis. Being the honest person you are, you will never post that objection to the shape of their feet again.

Here's a more complete discussion of the feet and ambulatory habits of A. Farensis:

http://johnhawks.net/explainer/early-hominins/feet-australopithecus-afarensis/

you do realise that the reader can just look up and see your post.
you said "I don't recall waxing lyrical about Lucy's foot bones",
let me help,
"Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) was already upright bipedal walking. The evolution of the foot was really minor . . . the big toe, used for pushing off in our walking style, moved to a straight forward position instead of being opposable; the other toes diminished, became vestigial. The foot developed an arch. Even today, the older, flat footed pattern remains in many people. All evidence of evolution"

ring any bells ?

"Being the honest person you are, you will never post that objection to the shape of their feet again."
I bet you and many others would quite like that.
unfortunately its not going to happen.

 

[Gene2memE]

"similar levels of body fat to humans", nope
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2015/06/why-humans-are-fat-primate.
(couldnt edit the "primate" error due to link)

Actually, yes.

I don't have time for your other (non)answers, but the body fat thing is pretty easily debunked. Bonbos, chimps and some macaques have exceptionally low body fat, in the wild. In captivity, with plentiful food and a sedentary lifestyle, their body fat percentages are much higher, to the point where guidelines were issued in 2007 for dealing with obesity in captive chimpanzees.

Other primates also have much higher body fat percentages:

Zihlman and McFarland (2000) dissected four captive gorillas and found both males and females to have substantial body fat percentages, ranging from 19.4% to 44%. Zilman, McFarland and Underwood (2011) found that wild gorillas have body fat percentages ranging from 7-8% to above 22%.

Orangutans in the wild have been shown to have body fat percentages of 15-44%.

Rhesus macaques in labs have an ‘optimal’ average body fat of 25%. Individuals in the obese range averaged 42.7% body fat.

Chimpanzees in the wild in optimal conditions have been shown to have body fat percentages of 9% to 13%.


To compare with humans, people living hunter gather societies have been found to have body fat percentages ranging from 9% to 24%. Body fat percentages in Western industrialized nations are much higher - between 15% and 37% on average.

When I was a competitive amateur triathlete, I had my body fat checked weekly. I maintained a BFP in the 8-11% range for better than six years, without too much difficulty. Now that I have a desk job, I'm up at about 14-16%.

 

[: D]

Actually, yes.

I don't have time for you other (non)answers, but the body fat thing is pretty easily debunked. Bonbos, chimps and some macaques have exceptionally low body fat, in the wild. In captivity, with plentiful food and a sedentary lifestyle, their body fat percentages are much higher, to the point where guidelines were issued in 2007 for dealing with obesity in captive chimpanzees.

Other primates also have much higher body fat percentages:

Zihlman and McFarland (2000) dissected four captive gorillas and found both males and females to have substantial body fat percentages, ranging from 19.4% to 44%. Zilman, McFarland and Underwood (2011) found that wild gorillas have body fat percentages ranging from 7-8% to above 22%.

Orangutans in the wild have been shown to have body fat percentages of 15-44%.

Rhesus macaques in labs have an ‘optimal’ average body fat of 25%. Individuals in the obese range averaged 42.7% body fat.

Chimpanzees in the wild in optimal conditions have been shown to have body fat percentages of 9% to 13%.


To compare with humans, people living hunter gather societies have been found to have body fat percentages ranging from 9% to 24%. Body fat percentages in Western industrialized nations are much higher - between 15% and 37% on average.

When I was a competitive amateur triathlete, I had my body fat checked weekly. I maintained a BFP in the 8-11% range for better than six years, without too much difficulty. Now that I have a desk job, I'm up at about 14-16%.

does "I don't have time for you other (non)answers" mean you have no rebuttal ?

as for debunking the evolution body fat cobblers I am happy to concede that point,
this nonsense..
"Bonobos, endangered great apes considered—along with chimpanzees—the closest living relative to humans, spend most of each day climbing through trees, collecting fruit and leaves. Compare that with the lives of early humans who traversed hot, barren landscapes and it begins to make sense why we’re the fattier, less muscular primate. Over the past 3 decades, two researchers analyzed the hard-to-come-by bodies of 13 bonobos that had died in captivity and compared them with already collected data on 49 human bodies donated by means of autopsy to help understand how evolution drove this change."
its an outrage,
im going to email sciencemag.org and tell them to stop with this ridiculous made up evolution propaganda.

: )

 

[crjmurray]

does "I don't have time for you other (non)answers" mean you have no rebuttal ?

as for debunking the evolution body fat cobblers I am happy to concede that point,
this nonsense..
"Bonobos, endangered great apes considered—along with chimpanzees—the closest living relative to humans, spend most of each day climbing through trees, collecting fruit and leaves. Compare that with the lives of early humans who traversed hot, barren landscapes and it begins to make sense why we’re the fattier, less muscular primate. Over the past 3 decades, two researchers analyzed the hard-to-come-by bodies of 13 bonobos that had died in captivity and compared them with already collected data on 49 human bodies donated by means of autopsy to help understand how evolution drove this change."
its an outrage,
im going to email sciencemag.org and tell them to stop with this ridiculous made up evolution propaganda.

: )

Please post screenshots of that conversation.

 

[Gene2memE]

Meh, on second thoughts, not worth it.

I'll go through the other points as time becomes available. Stay tuned.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

you do realise that the reader can just look up and see your post.
you said "I don't recall waxing lyrical about Lucy's foot bones",
let me help,
"Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) was already upright bipedal walking. The evolution of the foot was really minor . . . the big toe, used for pushing off in our walking style, moved to a straight forward position instead of being opposable; the other toes diminished, became vestigial. The foot developed an arch. Even today, the older, flat footed pattern remains in many people. All evidence of evolution"

ring any bells ?

Just statements of fact. Perhaps you consider that waxing lyrical, I consider it dry facts.

"Being the honest person you are, you will never post that objection to the shape of their feet again."
I bet you and many others would quite like that.
unfortunately its not going to happen.

Bones from the feet of A.Afarensis have been found. This is the thing you fail to take notice of. The bones indicate the arch of the foot was already evolving in the feet for Lucy. Of course, it wasn't Lucy's foot, it was feet from others of her species.

So what I expect you to do is to never say, again, that we don't have any foot bones for A. Afarensis, since we do.

Or you can tell a lie. Your choice.

 

[Gene2memE]

Humans and melanin.

One of the claims in the OP was that humans are not primates as our skin is "not adapted to sunlight exposure like all other primates".

There is twofold wrongness about this particular claim. In fact, its back to front in its wongness.

Firstly, human skin is more adapted to dealing with sunlight that that of other primates, not less. Non-human primates generally have heavy fur which protects their skin from direct UV exposure. However, all primates have greater or lesser amounts of melanocytes, which produce melanin which help to absorb UV radiation and reduce the damage done to the dermis.

Humans adapted to living in equatorial areas, exposed to the greatest amounts of UV radiation, generally have more melanocytes in their skin than humans adapted to living in much higher/much lower latitudes. Up to 40 times more, in fact. For, example, according the the US Cancer Council, African America skin has a sun protection factor of 13.4, compared with 3.4 in white skin.

In the early 1980s Jablonski and Chaplin used NASA UV models, along with information on dietary intake of Vitamin D, to successfully predicted the skin colors of indigenous people across the globe based on where they lived. Heavy pigmentation developed in human skin as an adaptation during transition from an aboreal habitat to a plains/savannah habitat. Light skin only evolved as humans moved out of Africa into higher latitudes.

Secondly, other primates also produce melanin. In fact, the range of melanin production other primates is incredibly diverse.

Some primates have high melanin levels at birth - when they have little or no fur - but lose most of their melanin production facilities during development, as their fur grows heavier. In contrast, chimpanzees and certain macaque and other monkey species have almost no melanin at birth, but are primarily black-skinned in adulthood.

There are also occurrences of white-skinned chimpanzees. This suggests that melanin levels are mostly irrelevant to most of the rest of the primate order due to their thick fur, apart from a few key areas such as the face, hands and tops of feet.

Thus, humans, without heavy fur and with high levels of melanin production depending on where they live, are better adapted to sunlight exposure than other primates.

 

[Gene2memE]

One quick one, then done for the day.

The OP claimed that humans have constant fingernail growth "unlike all other primates".

A very quick look at google reveals Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans all have constant nail growth and generally bite their nails to keep them short. There are recommendations on Chimpanzee nail length for zoos, as some chimps dont bite their nails and they can become somewhat hazardous to keepers and other chimps:

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Humans are animals. It's absurd to think that we are not... Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Haplorhini, Hominidae, Homo, Homo spaiens.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

reasons humans are not primates -

bones - thinner lighter than all other primates
skulls/brains - impossible to compare to other primates
head hair - constant growth unlike all other primates
nails- constant growth unlike all other primates
skin - not adapted to sunlight exposure like all other primates
muscles - 5 to 10 times weaker for relative size compared to all other primates
adipose tissue - 10 times more body fat than all other primates
locomotion - human locomotion different than all other primates
speech 1 -throats completely different than all other primates
speech 2 -brain construction different than all other primates
penis bone - missing unlike all other primates
genetic disorders- 4000 not in primates
chromosomes - 46 compared to the primate 48

of course the argument that someone made a wrong classification in the 18th century so we should just continue to run with it will be made,
and the scoffers will insult and arm wave,
some may even believe personal insults are called for,

however this post is not for the scoffers,
it is for the enquiring mind that follows truth wherever it may lead.

: )

Bottom line: "primate" is a human defined classification scheme. Scientists that use the term have their criterion that includes humans. You are not in a member of the group that makes that determination, so your objections will be ignored.

 

[Black Dog]

you do realise that the reader can just look up and see your post.
you said "I don't recall waxing lyrical about Lucy's foot bones",
let me help,
"Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy) was already upright bipedal walking. The evolution of the foot was really minor . . . the big toe, used for pushing off in our walking style, moved to a straight forward position instead of being opposable; the other toes diminished, became vestigial. The foot developed an arch. Even today, the older, flat footed pattern remains in many people. All evidence of evolution"

ring any bells ?

"Being the honest person you are, you will never post that objection to the shape of their feet again."
I bet you and many others would quite like that.
unfortunately its not going to happen.

You mean foot bones have been found for Australopithecus Afarensis, but because the fossil set labelled "Lucy" technically doesn't contain any, you pretend Paul of Eugene OR doesn't know what he is talking about? Not cool. Not cool at all.

 

[: D]

Please post screenshots of that conversation.

wouldn't you just pretend that it never happened because you cant find it with google like on another thread ?

: )

 

[: D]

Just statements of fact. Perhaps you consider that waxing lyrical, I consider it dry facts.



Bones from the feet of A.Afarensis have been found. This is the thing you fail to take notice of. The bones indicate the arch of the foot was already evolving in the feet for Lucy. Of course, it wasn't Lucy's foot, it was feet from others of her species.

So what I expect you to do is to never say, again, that we don't have any foot bones for A. Afarensis, since we do.

Or you can tell a lie. Your choice.

now lets be clear,
you said "feet of A.Afarensis have been found"
then "foot bones" have been found.

show me.

to coin a phrase "citations needed".

 

[: D]

Humans and melanin.

One of the claims in the OP was that humans are not primates as our skin is "not adapted to sunlight exposure like all other primates".

There is twofold wrongness about this particular claim. In fact, its back to front in its wongness.

Firstly, human skin is more adapted to dealing with sunlight that that of other primates, not less. Non-human primates generally have heavy fur which protects their skin from direct UV exposure. However, all primates have greater or lesser amounts of melanocytes, which produce melanin which help to absorb UV radiation and reduce the damage done to the dermis.

Humans adapted to living in equatorial areas, exposed to the greatest amounts of UV radiation, generally have more melanocytes in their skin than humans adapted to living in much higher/much lower latitudes. Up to 40 times more, in fact. For, example, according the the US Cancer Council, African America skin has a sun protection factor of 13.4, compared with 3.4 in white skin.

In the early 1980s Jablonski and Chaplin used NASA UV models, along with information on dietary intake of Vitamin D, to successfully predicted the skin colors of indigenous people across the globe based on where they lived. Heavy pigmentation developed in human skin as an adaptation during transition from an aboreal habitat to a plains/savannah habitat. Light skin only evolved as humans moved out of Africa into higher latitudes.

Secondly, other primates also produce melanin. In fact, the range of melanin production other primates is incredibly diverse.

Some primates have high melanin levels at birth - when they have little or no fur - but lose most of their melanin production facilities during development, as their fur grows heavier. In contrast, chimpanzees and certain macaque and other monkey species have almost no melanin at birth, but are primarily black-skinned in adulthood.

There are also occurrences of white-skinned chimpanzees. This suggests that melanin levels are mostly irrelevant to most of the rest of the primate order due to their thick fur, apart from a few key areas such as the face, hands and tops of feet.

Thus, humans, without heavy fur and with high levels of melanin production depending on where they live, are better adapted to sunlight exposure than other primates.

firstly I thank you for the detailed response and lack of insults and slurs (a refreshing change),
however (and im sure you wont be shocked) I still have some questions,

it seems to me humans, if your scenario were to be correct, would all be black (for want of a better phrase) to maintain this advantage ?
if the hypothesis was correct we could expect it to be constant.
Other populations directly on the equator are not dark enough for a constant like Equador, Columbia, Brasil and Indonesia yet they all experience the same sun.
also eskimos and the inuit should surely be as hairy as possible considering climate, and in keeping with other examples of "animals" in the region the hair should be white.

im truly interested if you have more information.

 

[: D]

One quick one, then done for the day.

The OP claimed that humans have constant fingernail growth "unlike all other primates".

A very quick look at google reveals Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans all have constant nail growth and generally bite their nails to keep them short. There are recommendations on Chimpanzee nail length for zoos, as some chimps dont bite their nails and they can become somewhat hazardous to keepers and other chimps:

thank you,

constant hair growth was also mentioned,
constantly growing hair in my opinion serves no advantage.
thoughts ?