|
Post by herodotus on Oct 26, 2013 10:13:02 GMT -5
"However, something besides just climate appears to have been influencing Neandertal limb proportions. In West Asian Neandertals, the lower limbs have short distal segments like those of European Neandertals, but the upper limbs do not. This suggests that the proportions of the upper and lower limbs may have been responding to different selection pressures, presumably having something to do with their different functions." - Cartmill, M., Smith, F. H. (2009). The Human Lineage. John Wiley & Sons. p. 376.
The table can be found on page 374; the data is taken from Trinkaus (1981), Holliday (1997) and Ruff et al. (2002).
West Asian Neanderthals Brachial: 77.2 Crural: 78.1
European Neanderthals Brachial: 73.2 Crural: 78.7
European Cro-Magnons Brachial: 77.7 Crural: 84.9
Mesolithic Europeans Brachial: 77.5 Crural: 85.5
Recent Europeans Brachial: 75.1 Crural: 82.9
Recent Eskimos Brachial: 75.3 Crural: 80.5
Recent Southern Africans (non-San) Brachial: 79.6 Crural: 86.1
Recent San Brachial: 76.2 Crural: 83.7
Recent North Africans Brachial: 78.6 Crural: 85.0
Recent African Americans Brachial: 76.8 Crural: 85.2
Things to note:
(a) By the Mesolithic, Europeans provide no evidence for the climatic hypothesis of limbs - their average crural index in fact increases. (b) Recent Europeans have a lower average brachial index than Eskimos despite living in less cold temperature. (c) San (Bushmen) do not have high brachial or crural indices like other Africans, falling much closer in both indices to Europeans (in fact in one study they cluster with Europeans in crural index). (d) West Asian Neanderthals have a higher average brachial index than African-Americans and San (Bushmen).
Other selection pressures seem to be stronger than climate. Also in numerous examples upper and lower limbs also seem to be responding to different selection pressures. Europeans live in much more temperate conditions than Eskimos who dwell in extreme cold, yet Eskimos do not have lower brachial indices than Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Oct 26, 2013 20:09:40 GMT -5
By the Mesolithic, Europeans provide no evidence for the climatic hypothesis of limbs - their average crural index in fact increases.
^^Increases in curals do not damage the role of climate, which by the way no one says explains 100% of everything. Increases in cural index can mean more tropicals in place, followed by gradual adaptation later, or even your mobility angle- delaying adaptation of tropicals ALREADY in place to the cold. Either way, climate, which you are trying to dismiss or deny, is still very much in place.
ANd you continue to be wrong in claiming that Upper Paleolithics show no climate adaptation, and indeed have produced nothing to back this claim except your own assertion. To the contrary- there was gradual adaptation. Per Holiday: "The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe." --Trenton W. Holliday (1999). Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans. Jrl Hu Evo. v 36, I5, --pp.549-566
Your assertion above is to "freeze" the Upper Paleolithics in time, like static stick figures. This is not what credible scholars hold on the subject, and you can provide no credible scholar that says there is no evidence for unchanging Upper Paleos. What scholar says this? Please provide full supportive citation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San (Bushmen) do not have high brachial or crural indices like other Africans, falling much closer in both indices to Europeans (in fact in one study they cluster with Europeans in crural index).
San Bushmen live primarily in a cooler temperate climate (here again, is that pesky climate which you keep denying or downplaying) so a bit more variability than other Africans in warmer climes is to be expected. But in what study do they "cluster with Europeans"? Are the San primarily then a European type population? Please provide full citation where your claim is supported.
--------------------------------------------------------------- Other selection pressures seem to be stronger than climate. Also in numerous examples upper and lower limbs also seem to be responding to different selection pressures. Europeans live in much more temperate conditions than Eskimos who dwell in extreme cold, yet Eskimos do not have lower brachial indices than Europeans.
Your attempt to minimize climate still fails. Here is what Cartmill 2011 says, and it actually reaffirms that climate played a major role- whether in Neanderthal or modern human:
"those of West Asian Neanderthals fall above the mean for modern EUropeans and Eskimos and only slightly below the north African modern mean. This difference between the limb proportions of European and Asian Neanderthals might reflect different levels of cold adaptation in the two groups. Perhpas the West Asian Neanderthals were in the process of re-adapting to more tropical conditions." --Cartmill pg 374
and your page 376 quote does nothing to rule out climate. It says: "In West Asian Neanderthals, the lower limbs have short distal segments like those of EUropean NEanderthals, but the upper limbs do not (Table 7.16)"
Even if mobility is included among the selection pressures, this STILL does NOT rule out the significance of climate. And when the West Asian Neanderthals are compared on cural indexes, they cluster closer to with cold-adapted Europeans. As noted already, the West Asian Neanderthals likely adopted somewhat to a warmer climate as they moved into the Levant. This is affirmed by the scholars below- quote:
" it seems likely that the west Asian Neanderthals originated in Europe, and they may have displaced more modern-looking people in Israel at the beginning of the Last Glaciation, roughly 71 ka." --R. Klein. 2009. The Human Career
The WA Neanderthals moved from EUrope into the warmer Levant and began to adapt accordingly. Here again, climate is no "problem" at all. Climate does not have to explain 100% of all changes in a species- it never can- and no credible scientist or student has ever claimed climate explains everything- but it is clearly a major, very significant factor. You are trying to dismiss or minimize the role of climate, but the same references you are using, actually support my case much more, and tend to contradict your claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Asian Neanderthals have a higher average brachial index than African-Americans and San (Bushmen).
Even if true it would make little difference as already detailed. But since you keep making this assertion, you still have produced no credible citation showing where the Neanderthals have higher indices than African-Americans or San. I again request the full citation to back your claim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Europeans have a lower average brachial index than Eskimos despite living in less cold temperature...
You say above that Europeans live in much more temperate climes than Eskimos yet Eskimos do not have lower brachial indices. This means little for both EUropeans and Eskimos lived in variable cold temperatures over time, including very cold climates for Euros. The Eskimo index is closer to the Euros- indicating that both are in the cold adapted cluster (75.3 Esk versus 75.1 EUro). Here again, the climate factor, which you keep trying to minimize or rule out is in place and isn't going anywhere. You keep conceiving of populations as static, unchanging entities- like the unchanging Upper Paleos, or the Euros supposedly locked into an unchanging temperate climate. Neither is true- your concept is faulty.
In summary, all the info you are bringing forward, only supports my case above.
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Oct 27, 2013 9:53:26 GMT -5
--Dupe post or user removed own post? please redo if needed. It had the last screenshot shown below.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Oct 29, 2013 20:12:02 GMT -5
European Cro-Magnons
Brachial: 77.7 Crural: 84.9
Mesolithic Europeans Brachial: 77.5 Crural: 85.5
I still think your concept is faulty. The Upper Paleolithics are not static unchanging entities, and in fact your listing of Cro-magnon vs Mesolitic Euros actually contradicts your approach. If there were no change why did the Mesolithic Euros drop in Brachial and raise in Cural? And Cro-magnons are not the only Upper Paleolithics in the various studies. Your own example undermines your case. You say: " "neither Brachial nor Crural Index (Figure 388)" ^^No fully cited source so it is difficult to identify its context. It appears you are relying on the obsolete Frayer 1993 reference. ANd what you say about Holliday 99 is not true- in fact I already cited Holiday 1999 which flatly contradicts your claim. Let me requote: ""The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe."--Trenton W. Holliday (1999). Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans. Jrl Hu Evo. v 36, I5, --pp.549-566 Yet you insisted that there was no change. Your list shows change, and Holliday shows change. Frayer 1993 sampling is limited or out of date. Overall, there was cold adaptation. See the following which shows that there was indeed adaptation and change between Paleolithics and Mesolithics. --------------------------------------------------------- What the data shows is that there were non-climatic pressures strongly involved in selecting UP/Mesolithic upper and lower limbs Sure climate does not explain or cover EVERY possible reason- 100% at all times. But far climate is a much stronger factor than mobility or other elements. ANd cold-adaptation did take place as credible scholars show time and time again. The table I copied is from three sources listed above including Ruff et al. (2002).Curious, because Ruff et al 2002 mentions neither the San or African Americans. WHat is the full source citation? Their indices are too low to lend support to the climatic hypothesis. While the extremity of South Africa has more temperate heat, if the climatic hypothesis were true, San should fall between Africans and Europeans^^But actually they do, confirming that the climate does have an effect. In your own diagram below, the San, an African population, fall between the Africans and the Europeans on limb proportions- exacctly what would be predicted with climate as a central factor. AND in your diagram, the Mesolithics are not static but also begin to show movement towards the colder adaptation side.
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Oct 31, 2013 19:08:49 GMT -5
Yes the reply for some reason disappeared. Anyway you keep claiming Holliday and others support your view, when they don't. Holliday (1999) agrees with Frayer et al that crural and brachial indices remain high in Mesolithic Europeans, providing no evidence of cold adaptation. Contrary though to Frayer (1993) Holliday dismisses these indices and argues Mesolithic Europeans show colder adaptation in their limb proportions. What he is saying is that crural/brachial indices are not accurate markers of limb sizes, but if used he accepts the fact Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans remain high in their indices. You have a dilemna if you want to use Holliday here because it means you will need to abandon crural/brachial indices entirely. I don't though see you doing that.
The last table, under "Mesolithic", is not only representing Europeans, there is no specific population mentioned in brackets. So this table does not support your claim crural indices lowered during the Mesolithic. On the contrary they remained high in Europeans. The data on San and African-Americans is in Holliday (1997) and Trinkaus (1981).
Moving on from limbs, if Upper Palaeolithic Europeans were originally African migrants, then their cranial indices should be low -
"Kenneth Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) made a comparitive study of 20,000 skulls from populations around the world and found a close correlation between environmental temperaure and head shape. Populations in colder climates had, on average, rounder heads than populations in the tropics." (Quintyn, 2010)
Upper Palaeolithic European skulls however are overwelmingly not dolichocephalic (long-skulled). So how do you explain this?
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 2, 2013 2:03:30 GMT -5
1 Anyway you keep claiming Holliday and others support your view, when they don't. Holliday (1999) agrees with Frayer et al that crural and brachial indices remain high in Mesolithic Europeans, providing no evidence of cold adaptation. This is dubious and directly contradicted by the Holliday quote already shown. 2 Contrary though to Frayer (1993) Holliday dismisses these indices and argues Mesolithic Europeans show colder adaptation in their limb proportions.^^You just contradicted yourself. In para 1 above you say there is no evidence of cold adaption. But in para 2 right above you say that Holiday argues that "Mesolithic Europeans show colder adaptation"What he is saying is that crural/brachial indices are not accurate markers of limb sizes, but if used he accepts the fact Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans remain high in their indices. You have a dilemna if you want to use Holliday here because it means you will need to abandon crural/brachial indices entirely. I don't though see you doing that. There is no dilemma at all because even if indices remain high, that does not mean no cold adaptation took place. To the contrary, Holliday 1999 holds for gradual cold adaptation. It is you who have the dilemma, having contradicted your own arguments, even when using your own sources. The last table, under "Mesolithic", is not only representing Europeans, there is no specific population mentioned in brackets. So this table does not support your claim crural indices lowered during the Mesolithic. On the contrary they remained high in Europeans. The data on San and African-Americans is in Holliday (1997) and Trinkaus (1981).^^But your own table, shows the opposite of what you now claim. Here again, your own "supporting" references are contradicting and tripping you up. The "Mesolithic" charted, show clustering towards the colder side, directly contradicting the claims you made earlier. You now say, well, they aren't charting only Europeans. WHo then are the Mesolithics being charted? Chinese? And it makes no difference at all actually- for "they" STILL cluster towards th cold adapted side. Your own reference, debunks your claim. Moving on from limbs, if Upper Palaeolithic Europeans were originally African migrants, then their cranial indices should be low -
"Kenneth Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) made a comparitive study of 20,000 skulls from populations around the world and found a close correlation between environmental temperaure and head shape. Populations in colder climates had, on average, rounder heads than populations in the tropics." (Quintyn, 2010)
Upper Palaeolithic European skulls however are overwelmingly not dolichocephalic (long-skulled). So how do you explain this?^^This is yet another example of you debunking yourself. In fact numerous samples do show dolichephalic shapes and variations. Note: Hoffnecker cited above as just one example says: " The adult male skull from Kostenki II is large and dolichocephalic (i.e., long headed),"--Hoffecker, J.F. (2002). Desolate Landscapes. Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. And even your skull "angle" debunks your claim. You say there is no cold adaptation, yet your 1984 "skull" study shows that to the contrary, there was a trend over time in colder climates for less dolichephaly.. QUOTE: "We offer an alternative hypothesis that suggests that hominid expansion into regions of cold climate produced change in head shape...--Kenneth Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) ^^Here again, your own "supporting" reference, undermines your claim.
|
|
|
Post by herodotus on Nov 2, 2013 15:11:42 GMT -5
There is no contradiction. Holliday (1999) agrees with Frayer et al. (1993) that crural/brachial indices remained high during the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe providing no evidence of cold adaptation. Holliday however argues that limb indices are not reliable, and argues for cold adaptation. Using the indices however, he acknowledges alongside Frayer that indices remained unchanged and high. If you want to argue that limbs are selected strongly by climate, then like Holliday, you are forced to abandon crural/brachial indices. Instead though you post or reference them as if they lend support to the climatic hypothesis (?). Here's the study abstract: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10222169It summarizes everything I have said: Repeatedly claiming Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans show cold adaptation in their crural/brachial indices is contradicted by Holliday, Frayer, Trinkaus, among others, and the data itself. Crural/brachial indices in Europe remained high until the Neolithic. There are three theories that explain this: (a) Holliday (1999) argues crural/brachial indices are not reliable or accurate. (b) Frayer (1993) and Wolpoff (1999) argue there are stronger non-climatic selection pressures involved (e.g. locomotion) hence limbs remained high. (c) Trinkaus (1981) argues for massive amounts of gene flow with Africans to account for the unchanged high indices. Holliday argues for cold adaptation, but he asserts crural/brachial indices are not reliable. He though accepts that if the indices are used, they provide no evidence for cold adaptation. That was my point. The indices remain unchanged and high. So you are left with (a), (b) or (c) above. The table isn't based only on Europeans, there are Eskimos and San who overlap ethnic European mean crural indices. I presume "Mesolithic" here is just a pool average from everyone, including Africans. The actual data on Mesolithic Europeans is this: Mesolithic Europeans Brachial: 77.5 Crural: 85.5 Both indices are high. This is something you keep ignoring because it completely debunks your climatic hypothesis. Also why do San have lower crural index than Yugoslavs despite living in greater heat? 1 skull out of 100 or more. Look up the mean index based on many skulls. It's not dolichocephalic. I never objected to climatic selection and crania. I claimed limbs (post-crania) are not selected by climate, or if they are, the pressure is weak, compared to non-climatic selection. The reason for this is quite simple, post-crania is not exposed to weather like the head, especially the face. Humans were wearing trousers, garments and so forth, even if very crude, for hundreds of thousands of years.
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Nov 2, 2013 19:43:52 GMT -5
Herodotus says: If you want to argue that limbs are selected strongly by climate, then like Holliday, you are forced to abandon crural/brachial indices.^^Not at all because as Holliday notes, gradual adaptation to the cold from the tropical base occurred. Your summary does not change the bottom line. Yes the Upper Paleos have more tropical indices- (indicatve of their African background), and the following Mesos have a bit more than than do RECENT Euros. But recent Euros are those who have undergone the extra millennia sufficient to make significant adaptations to cold over time. Repeatedly claiming Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans show cold adaptation in their crural/brachial indices is contradicted by Holliday, Frayer, Trinkaus, among others, and the data itself. Wrong again, as detailed above and the references you provide in support, actually undermine your no-cold adaptation claim. Frayer 1993 is obsolete or of limited scope and Wolfpoff in 99 refers to Frayer 93. If Trinkhaus 81 holds for a continual flow of Africans sufficient to maintain the indices, this STILL does not mean the indices remained static. Once the continual flow was reduced, those left in place, gradually began to show more adaptations. Holliday argues for cold adaptation, but he asserts crural/brachial indices are not reliable. He though accepts that if the indices are used, they provide no evidence for cold adaptation. That was my point. The indices remain unchanged and high. So you are left with (a), (b) or (c) above. Wrong and you contradict your earlier claim, yet again. You say there is no cold adaptation, and that Holiday supports this, but directly up above, you say "Holiday argues for cold adaptation." You say no, but your reference says Yes. You are tripping yourself up with your own references. And if Holliday says "Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length" - he is talking OVERALL limb LENGTH, BUT he goes on to say this about cold adaptation: "The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.^^You keep leaving out or avoiding the second part of his statement, conveniently, for it debunks your no-cold adaptation claim. Mesolithic Europeans Brachial: 77.5 Crural: 85.5
Both indices are high. This is something you keep ignoring because it completely debunks your climatic hypothesis. Also why do San have lower crural index than Yugoslavs despite living in greater heat? ^^You keep repeating the same debunked no-cold adaptation points, but they have already been debunked. Your own diagram on the Mesolithics as presented above show them clustering more with the cold adapted side. Even if they were "mixed in" with heat dwelling Africans it makes little difference anyhow, for gradual climate adaptations over time can start from a high baseline and work down- which is exactly what Holliday notes when he says gradual adaptation. Furthermore the San as one of the oldest African populations are highly variable, and live in a temperate zone, and as predicted by climate, their proportions would fall somewhere between cold-adapted types and heavily adapted tropical types. Once again, none of your arguments change the bottom line and your own references actually undermine them further. Look up the mean index based on many skulls. It's not dolichocephalic. You claimed above that Upper Paleos were overwhelmingly NOT dolichocephalic. This is false, as shown above, and on top of that, your own proferred reference even shows that there was change in skulls due to cold adaptation over time. This debunks your earlier no-cold adapt claim. Here again, you tripped yourself up with your own references.
|
|