(no subject)
Nov. 17th, 2003 08:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gmonkey42I went to that talk after all. Everyone else went so I was like 'screw it, I'm going.' I just got back to the lab from a party at Dr. H(a faculty member)'s house. Pretty sweet. They fed us dinner and everything. I didn't really talk to the guest speaker. But he told some stories about seeing monkeys and stuff, to which I listened. I could go home now. But I thought I may as well update my journal now, since sometimes it's hard to use the computer at home with kitty!Snape around.
His talk was about the origins of bipedalism. He was talking about there being two lineages, the "nutcrackers" - afarensis, the Paranthropuses (Paranthro...pi? whatever) etc. and the other one, including africanus and the Homos (which would be a good name for a band) (I am funnee). Which may or may not be valid - I haven't been keeping up to date on the latest fossil stuff. But the hominid "tree" is really much more like a bush, and I don't think anyone in the field nowadays is disputing that. Clearly, Paranthropus belong to their own mini clade. Anyway. Then he went on to say that bipedal locomotion evolved SEPARATELY in these two clades. What?! Why? Why couldn't it be that it evolved once (hello, parsimony, anyone?) in the common ancestor of all the hominins? Huh? But he said some stuff that indirectly tied in with the aquatic ape hypothesis, which I'm beginning to think I may grudgingly have to start taking seriously. The thing that always bugged me about it was the idea that living near the water was a driving force for the evolution of bipedalism. This speaker suggested the opposite: that humans moved into coastal habitats after they became bipedal. Although, by then, we'd probably already evolved a lot of the other traits that the aquatic ape hypothesis claims to account for. Like the relative lack of body hair. But it's something to think about, anyway.< /boring anthro stuff>
I had a pretty good time at the party. I hadn't really met Dr. H before. He had a bottle opener attached to, I'm not kidding, a kangaroo's scrotum. Which, fortunately for all concerned, was not still attached to the kangaroo. He also had a penis bone on his book shelf, from either a dog or a raccoon is my guess. Yes, some carnivores have penis bones. And I know what they look like. I didn't ask but that's definitely what it was. Pfft. Anthropologists... Darn tasty food, anyway. I skipped TKD for it. I might not have gone, but I'd never really met Dr. H before, as I said, and this seemed like a good opportunity. I heard that his wife is Jimmy Stewart's daughter. Huh. I heard that in the car, on the way back to campus. But I would've felt weird bringing it up at the party anyway, so it's just as well. Am I overusing the word 'anyway' here? Aw who cares? I had some wine. I have no tolerance for alcohol at all. I had, like, half a glass and I'm a little buzzed. Just a little. But that's as drunk as I get. I never drink to get drunk, you know? Just socially. Ok, maybe I'll go home now.
His talk was about the origins of bipedalism. He was talking about there being two lineages, the "nutcrackers" - afarensis, the Paranthropuses (Paranthro...pi? whatever) etc. and the other one, including africanus and the Homos (which would be a good name for a band) (I am funnee). Which may or may not be valid - I haven't been keeping up to date on the latest fossil stuff. But the hominid "tree" is really much more like a bush, and I don't think anyone in the field nowadays is disputing that. Clearly, Paranthropus belong to their own mini clade. Anyway. Then he went on to say that bipedal locomotion evolved SEPARATELY in these two clades. What?! Why? Why couldn't it be that it evolved once (hello, parsimony, anyone?) in the common ancestor of all the hominins? Huh? But he said some stuff that indirectly tied in with the aquatic ape hypothesis, which I'm beginning to think I may grudgingly have to start taking seriously. The thing that always bugged me about it was the idea that living near the water was a driving force for the evolution of bipedalism. This speaker suggested the opposite: that humans moved into coastal habitats after they became bipedal. Although, by then, we'd probably already evolved a lot of the other traits that the aquatic ape hypothesis claims to account for. Like the relative lack of body hair. But it's something to think about, anyway.< /boring anthro stuff>
I had a pretty good time at the party. I hadn't really met Dr. H before. He had a bottle opener attached to, I'm not kidding, a kangaroo's scrotum. Which, fortunately for all concerned, was not still attached to the kangaroo. He also had a penis bone on his book shelf, from either a dog or a raccoon is my guess. Yes, some carnivores have penis bones. And I know what they look like. I didn't ask but that's definitely what it was. Pfft. Anthropologists... Darn tasty food, anyway. I skipped TKD for it. I might not have gone, but I'd never really met Dr. H before, as I said, and this seemed like a good opportunity. I heard that his wife is Jimmy Stewart's daughter. Huh. I heard that in the car, on the way back to campus. But I would've felt weird bringing it up at the party anyway, so it's just as well. Am I overusing the word 'anyway' here? Aw who cares? I had some wine. I have no tolerance for alcohol at all. I had, like, half a glass and I'm a little buzzed. Just a little. But that's as drunk as I get. I never drink to get drunk, you know? Just socially. Ok, maybe I'll go home now.
