How Did Tree-Top Monkey Grow Twice Size During The Pleistocene?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Aridity in the arctic means that less precipitation means that less snow falls during the winter. This means that high summer temperatures quickly melt the snow away to provide less pasture. It's the way that grasses grow from their tips which allows them to be grazed by meag-fauna such as mammoths. This is how they managed to survive the ice ages.
This is proof that the 1,470 year Bond events which are cooling and arid periods were global and not just the north atlantic weather system. The whole world gets suddenly much colder with less rainfall and more sunshine! More evidence to support my theory of increasing solar gravity tides..
The ocean currents get stronger with the warm Gulf Stream swirling around the Arctic basin, sometimes joining the warm Pacific current to continue to the glaciers of Greenland, producing a vast armada of icebergs. What wonders.
Of course, I made a mistake; the point is that this growing technique allows for constant grazing.
Here's the latest http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science+environment-10633640
Welcome to the club! It's not so clear, as I said, there are numerous reasons why a species would increase in size. A double sized spider monkey is still the size of many other successful monkeys.
The findings are clearly astounding and inexplicable with current understanding. The bottom line is that in an ice age one would intuitively think that less sunshine=less plant growth=smaller animals. The opposite is in fact the case. My conclusion, which I've stated in another thread somewhere incidentally, is that in an ice age the sun is hotter=more plant growth=bigger animals. This topsy-turvy thinking is valid believe it or not. The decrease in temperature can be caused by increased tidal mixing of the oceans. This mechanism would require a re-hash of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity models, but who cares? The really cold bottom waters get more mixed with the warmer surface temperatures. Et voila.
Actually it more likely suggests the moving from a Herbivore status to more Omnivore. Larger Monkey's might have occurred at the expense of many small animals and other Monkey's alike.
That's a reasonable idea at first thought but there's a snag. The skull found would show this proposed change in diet. A more carnivorous diet would require stronger jaw muscles. These are attached to the bones comprising the skull and would require a thickening of the bone mass. The experts would easily have spotted this anomaly should it have existed. Nice try though Stryder.
