KAYNAK, Oktay
Independent Researcher, Turkey oktaykaynak@hotmail.com
FOOT
AND ANKLE
They are semi-arboreal and
semi-aquatic. What implies them to be arboreal is the long arms and the
ankles. Being aquatic is related to the
heels. The heel looks like a primate but it is bipedal.It survives on sea food.
It gets down the tree, where it climbs up to sleep, walks on two feet in shallow
waters picking up or hunting for seafood that is how it survives. For this
reason, its heel bone, like a terrestrial bipedal heel, did not start looking
like human heel. Its heel will look like
human heel after deserting the
waters. (Kaynak, O.2007) Other than that, human being’s foot is suggested to
take its last shape 200.000 years ago.(Meldrum D.J.2004)
To explain its primate like heel, it
is said that it had Achilles tendon like modern human being. The heel, being
exactly like a primate heel, (that is to say four legged living being), while
walking on two feet, the weight of the body would be carried directly by the
heels, and the reason for that is, this heel structure would not be able to
carry this weight, they concluded that, it should have type of Achilles tendon
(tendo calcenos) similar to human being. (1), (Zipfel B. et al 2011)
IF
IT HAS THE MATURE TENDON LIKE MODERN HUMAN, AND IF THIS TENDON SUSTAINS
BIPEDALITY WITH PRIMATE HEEL, WHY DID THE HEEL EVOLVE AND CHANGE LIKE MODERN
HUMAN’S IN HOMO TYPES LATER?
It is because modern human has Achille
tendon as well as his heel is very different than a primate. Why did the
realization of standing up that started 5-6 million years ago, changed the
pelvis to this degree, but not change the heel bone as well? It should change
that too. Because the heel bones of the homo
fossils of Au. sediba found so far
are human like. The basic reason why the heel bone is like modern human is the
fact of walking on two feet.
However if the fact that Au. sediba was surviving in shallow
waters, hunting and foraging sea food was kept in mind, because of the buoyancy
of water during its walk on two feet, while stepping, the weight on one heel
would be getting less and the weight perhaps was absorbed from one tendon could
be kept in mind. (Kaynak,O.2007, 2010) Other than that the bedrocks of lakes,
rivers and seas are generally soft, and the weight on one foot could be
absorbed by advanced Achille tendon. Soft grounds would spread the weight over
the sole of the foot and lessen the weight on heel.If this living being, who is on two feet for 3-4 million years and still having primate heels, then it is not terrestrial. This living being is semi-aquatic and semi-arboreal. (Kaynak, O.2010).
In other words, it was climbing up the trees that do not have any fruit on them, only to sleep safely at nights and surviving on hunting and foraging sea food in shallow waters during day time.
PELVIS
The reason of the pelvis shaping like
a bowl and correspondingly the rib cage becoming cylindrical and getting narrower, is the
fact of being two footed and having a perpendicular body trunk. According to
the obstetric hypothesis that is known until today, the pelvis took its shape
so it could give birth to big skulled (brained) babies. (2), (3)
This hypothesis was ruled out when
they found out that Au. sediba’s
skull was small, which was a real concrete fact. (Kibii J.M. et al. 2011)
Because its pelvis is like a bowl and very close to human pelvis, despite the
fact that its skull volume is 420 cc.Infact the reason that its pelvis changed, looking like human pelvis, is not to give birth to big skulled babies but because of its bipedality. The main part that carries the body vertically on two feet is the pelvis. A pelvis like a chimpanzee's pelvis cannot carry the vertical body on two feet. (Kaynak, O. 2010, 2011, 2012) Prof Lee Berger and his team tell that Au. sediba is arboreal as well as terrestrial.(2) Their base is the characteristics that it has long arms like tree primates, shin bones like primates and the ankle and wrist joints close to primates.
If Au sediba could adapt to an arboreal and terrestrial life, its heel bone would be humanlike. It could be claimed that it went down to ground recently, but then one should ask when did its pelvis became like human? Because, for the pelvis to get the shape like a bowl, the being should have walked on two feet for so long and the trunk of the body should become upright in great proportion. Besides, this change process has started in Rift Valley 5-6 million years ago. The shape of the pelvis is a definite result of long time bipedality.
BRAIN
The cause of human brain growing
bigger, is exactly around the same time, when Au sediba’s body trunk has reached enough erectness, thus the
position of the embryo in the womb changed. After this moment the embryo
adapted itself to vertical body trunk. At certain stage of vertical body, the
position of the baby in womb has changed. The head turned towards birth channel
as in all mammals, as supposed, the embryo of
Australopithecus
overturning180 degrees, changed the position of its head towards diaphragm and
its body close to the birth channel. I call this MENTAL OVERTURNİNG (MENTİS EVERSİONİS). (Kaynak O.1983, 1998, 2007,
2008, 2010, 2011, 2012) What has
happened all of a sudden? Has there been extraordinary environmental changes?
(Carlson K.J. et al 2011) The answer to those questions is the mental
overturning. The mental overturning triggered and started the growing of the
skull and the changes in the jaw. After this mental overturning, each Australopithecus started giving birth to
babies with skull volume bigger than hers. For this reason, when the Australopithecus fossils are examined,
the erection of body trunk, cylindrical and narrower ribs are not understood,
but only the skull enlargement has been observed. (Kaynak O. 2007, 2008)
TO
DATE
The reason of meticulousness of dating is Au. sediba’s living 70-80 thousand years before Homo habilis and having the volume of
420cc skull whereas Homo habilis’s
skull is of volume of 680-750 cc. (Pickering
R.et al 2011)
HANDS
As a result of the enforcement of
environmental conditions, the change in hands of a living being, taking this
shape, due to walking on two feet in shallow waters, hunting and foraging
seafood is not surprising. When living on the tree, this living being is
foraging the fruit and putting it in its mouth. This does not require
sophisticated hand manipulation. But when it was forced to feed on sea food, to
forage shelled foods, carrying them, opening up the shell and eating it needs
sophisticated hand manipulation. Moreover, the most important seafood, fish,
has to be caught and carrying it requires the grabbing feature of the thumb to
be improved (as in modern man). This “catching the fish by hand” should not be
surprising, as it is known that bears catch fish with their mouths, eagles with
their claws and in Sumatra, long tailed macaques catch with their long hands.
(Steward et al 2008).Animals use their body parts and their bodies with higher skills and more functionally than human beings. Perhaps Au. sediba was exploring the fish nests underneath plant roots in shallow waters and catching fish with its hands. The teeth being this small and human like has to be considered as a result of eating all those sea food and fish.
Finds of Au. sediba fossils in past, under a water filled caves, should make
one think that these were once caves at lake bottoms. The thought that the 13
individuals of Au sediba family found
in Afar region of Ethiopia could have been drowned, was contributed from this
fact. (4)
Starting from those wrong informations
so far, there is a search for appropriate, sophisticated, manipulative,
advanced brain. And with a new idea, defining that brain as “small but
reorganized”, advanced brain for advanced hand point of view was put forth.
At this point we must ask, IF IT IS SMALL BUT REORGANIZED, IN OTHER
WORDS, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT EXACTLY LIKE THE MODERN HUMAN BRAIN AS WE KNOW, BUT
WITH SOPHISTICATED FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS CLOSE TO HUMAN, AND CREATED AN
ADVANCED HAND THAT IT CAN COMMAND, THEN WHY DID THE VOLUME OF ITS SKULL
INCREASED LATER? Being concrete and perceptible, not having a big skull
that is appropriate for pelvis was accepted and obstetric hypothesis was
abandoned. Same attitude should be shown on Achille tendon subject, the reality
should be accepted as is and that situation should be explained analytically.
The same thing is valid for hand-brain relation. That has to be explained by
analytic reason-result association.
Au sediba is the Rosetta Stone of human evolution. It is a fortune for human history and human science. It has to be studied correctly.
REFERENCES:
- Bernhard Zipfel, Jeremy M. DeSilva, Robert S. Kidd, Kristian J. Carlson, Steven E. Churchill, Lee R. Berger. The Foot and Ankle of Australopithecus sediba. Science 9 September 2011: 1417-1420. DOI:10.1126/science.1202703
- Job M. Kibii, Steven E. Churchill, Peter Schmid,
Kristian J. Carlson, Nichelle D. Reed, Darryl J. de Ruiter, Lee R. Berger.
A Partial Pelvis of Australopithecus
sediba. Science 9 September
2011: 1407-1411. DOI:10.1126/science.1202521
- Kaynak O.1983 If a Mammalian
Embryo is Implanted in Another Mammalian Uterus and is Given Birth to this
Embryo What will Happen? Evcil Journal 5
- Kaynak O. 1998 Aktüel Journal
344: 50-53
- Kaynak O. 2007 How did Human Become Human? A New
Suggestion. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknoloji Journal 1058: 12-14
- Kaynak O. 2008 How did We
Evolve in Our Current Situation? Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknoloji Journal 1129:2
- Kaynak O. 2010 IV. Symposium of Biological Anthropology, abstracts
booklet 2
- Kaynak O. 2011 XI. International Symposium on
‘’Disorder Systems: Theory and Its Applications’’ : 15
- Kaynak O. 2012 XI. International Symposium on
‘’Disorder Systems: Theory and Its Applications’’ : 11
- Kristian J. Carlson, Dietrich Stout, Tea
Jashashvili, Darryl J. de Ruiter, Paul Tafforeau, Keely Carlson, Lee R.
Berger. The Endocast of MH1, Australopithecus
sediba. Science 9 September
2011: 1402-1407. DOI:10.1126/science.1203922
- Manipulative Abilities. Science
9 September 2011: 1411-1417 DOI:10.1126/science.1202625
- Meldrum D. Jeffrey .
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 65–79, 2004
- Robyn Pickering, Paul H. G. M. Dirks, Zubair Jinnah,
Darryl J. de Ruiter, Steven E. Churchil, Andy I. R. Herries, Jon D.
Woodhead, John C. Hellstrom, Lee R. Berger. Australopithecus sediba at 1.977 Ma and Implications for
the Origins of the Genus Homo.
Science 9 September 2011: 1421-1423. DOI:10.1126/science.1203697
No comments:
Post a Comment