Slashdot Mirror
Macaque Monkey Goes Totally Bipedal
Freshly Exhumed writes "Add another bonus point for the Darwinians/evolutionists. A macaque at the Safari Park Zoo in Ramat Gan, Israel has recovered from a near-fatal illness in an unusual way: she has switched exclusively to walking on her hind legs. Given theories of human history that stress the effect of disease on events and changes, as in William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, what if an illness was the cause of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain functions."
Judging from some of the people I've met, bipedalism does not imply higher brain functions are present in the individual.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Another possible theory is that a weakened stomach system might depend more on gravity than before. The macque's possibly-weakend stomach system may now have more discomfort when walking on all fours, forcing the macque to walk upright to avoid discomfort.
This theory may not be valid, but this could be worth investigating?
Get this monkey a typewriter! I'm in the mood for some new Shakespeare.
Oh hells no. We need to stop this race of super-human monkeys at the source! If we wait much longer it'll be too late.
There are some pictures of the animal in question here.
...what remains to be seen, is if the macaque spreads the knowledge of how to walk on two legs permanently by teaching its young or other apes. If it doesn't, then the incident will be nothing more than a curiosity. If it does...we may have seen a major evolutionary breakthrough in a species.
Praise the Good Lord!! I'll tell you how that monkey was healed, and it was none of your voodoo which craft medicine! The Good Lord saw fit to grant that monkey a second chance, and He blessed that monkey with a miraculous gift! I prayed harder for that monkey than anything else in my good Christian life, and I prayed, and I prayed to the Good Lord that He would see fit to grant that little monkey the ability to overcome the darkness and the flu, and Praise the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ, He has come through for us and that little monkey! Praise the Lord, Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Where's Charlton Heston when you need him?
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
walking upright is actually a defect in regards to survival, since she'd be easier to spot far away by more advanced predators...
Oh please. That is ridiculous, and you should be ashamed of your own brain for even posting that. You might note that the monkey is now taller, and can therefore spot more advanced predators when they are farther away, giving the monkey more time to escape.
I moderate "-1, Fool"
Maybe some other /.er can come up with the name of the documentary. This can't be a new insight.
Letter To Iran
Has anyone done a study on whether human bipedalism is due to the behavior learned from surrounding people or if there are practical reasons for why we hardly ever walk on all fours? That is, do we just walk on two legs most of the time because everybody else does?
The monkey to correctly enunciate a single English word, and in the company of fellow monkeys slips into fits of screaming:
You only need to be smart enough to survive until you can breed. Look around among your fellow humans- it don't take much to reach that point.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Sure, this dog walks on its hind legs. It still doesn't really impress me all that much. I've been doing the very same thing for about 22 years.
Now, if the dog was on Letterman's stupid pet tricks, then I would be impressed.
There is also the possibility that walking with the use of its arms causes discomfort. Pain and discomfort is a strong convincer of learned behaviour.
For example, if you are unfortunate enough to break a bone, how long after the cast comes off do you still tentatively utilise that body part? If your hip gets broken, a limp occurs and only through extensive retraining through physotherapy is the muscles and learned knee jerk reaction to avoid pain unlearned.
Having a physiotherapist in the immediate family and spending lots of time around recovering individuals, I have noted that people who refuse to perform their physio properly inevitably take longer to heal and revert back to normal physical movement.
The fact that this animal refuses to, can not, or will not revert back to normal movement may just be an indication of its non-complete healing. I believe time will tell on this one.
flinging poop since 1969
It depends on how well she develops the ability. Walking upright makes you easier to catch, running upright makes you much harder to.
For a monkey or ape, which doesn't have the adaptations for it, running up right is slower than on all fours. (That's why they switch back to all four when in a hurry.)
The advantage of the two-legged walk for people is that it is lower-energy, not that it's faster. This lets us jog for a long time, at speeds that quickly overheat and exhaust prey animals until they drop from heat prostration.
People can outrun some horses in a very short sprint (though I wouldn't bet on it for quarterhorses). And they can jog down darn near anything. But in the middle distances other animals do better.
It may have been a defect when the first human did it, but it survived and we ended up all the better for it.
In particular it gave us a new hunting mode (like wolf packs but better) that, in combination with freeing the hands for weapon use, put us on top of the food chain and gave us the safety and leisure to develop agriculture and technology.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The notion that humans only use 10% of their brains is completely wrong. It stemmed from the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie, that was published in 1936. On page 206 Carnegie quotes Professor William James, a psychologist at Harvard, as saying
"Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resources. Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use."
And furthermore, on page 11 of the foreward, Lowell Thomas misquotes Professor James where he says
"Professor William James of Harvard used to say that the average man develops only 10 percent of his latent mental ability."
So, maybe Professor James did actually say something like that, but he said it just as a motivator for people, not because it had any basis in scientific research. The only reason "everyone knows" that people only use 10% of their brains is because of Dale Carnegie's wildly popular book, which incidentally, was marketed to sales people, who are notoriously science-illiterate.
To put it into perspective, would you be as intelligent as you are now if you lost 90% of your brain? It's sad that American school teachers sometimes teach this crap in their classrooms, when it's only raison d'etre is a misquote in a 1930's book for salesmen.
I, for one, welcome our new Macaque overlords.
Sorry.....
Of blankness, I know nothing.
...and we can pee standing up too!
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
The problem is that creationism is pseudo-science, often by people trying to "prove" their religion, or trying to find a way to squeak in religion edgewise as a subject legitimately teachable in public schools.
For one, one does not read a book intended for spiritual enlightenment as a history book. That is the using-a-saw-as-a-hammer approach, such that its usefulness is somewhat limited because that is outside the scope of the texts. Have you ever tried to read about the complete history of Nevada in a book about the WW II nuclear programs? It majorly falls short.
Many of the same people read far too literally into such texts, particularly concerning the creation accounts, of which there are at least two accounts in the Hebrew Torah. Both are conflicting accounts, if you take them literally. If one says one is literal, the other non-literal, then you have an argument on which one is literal.
The people that try to claim that the earth is young and claim that is provable now, either are lying, are ignorant or couldn't pass a decent set of college science and math classes such as calculus, statistics, geology and second-year chemistry, because they pass off "facts" that seem to contradict some basic experiments I've done. Some try to make up some BS theories on radiation, but there are greater holes in those theories than they claim are in old-earth and evolution theories.
But this monkey likely tells us nothing about either theory.
Seen from the perspective of one with postdoc level training in related matters, this is silly. It is wrong as support for natural selection in the origin of species among primates for two reasons:
;-)
1) In dogs, a broken leg makes them walk on three legs. This is compensation, not evolution toward bipedal posture. The broken-legged puppy is LESS likely to survive and reproduce (its weaker bones mayhap?).
In monkeys, a broken or weak arm (eg. from illness) makes them prefer to walk on two legs, but again the arm problem makes them LESS likely to survive. And monkeys in general already know how to walk on two legs OR on all fours--they do not need a group behavioral culture to teach them to do so. (Humans don't need to be taught to crawl by someone who cannot walk because of a weak leg, for example.)
2) More importantly, this smacks of Lamark. Arm weakness after enterovirus polimyelitis may cause a monkey that orginally could walk on EITHER all fours (preferred) OR bipedally to change to PREFER bipedal walking. Lamark said giraffes had long necks from straining their necks upward--this is the concept of learned or acquired characteristics passed to offspring. This is not a DNA based theory! And, it was not Dawin's theory!
Bad evolutionist--know thy Darwin!
Instead of a win for Darwin, this would actually be a win for Lamarck (whom Darwin discredited). If the acquired behavior seen in these monkeys is passed on to their offspring, it would prove Lamarck's "Theory of Aquired Characteristics".
Here's a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
the creation accounts, of which there are at least two accounts in the Hebrew Torah.
Much of what appears to conflict in English is an artifact of translation. Given this explanation of how the two accounts in the opening chapters of Genesis complement each other, with reference to the original Hebrew, what do you still find in conflict?
Care to back that up?
Last time I heard there was no consensus amongst investigators on how we ended up walking upright entirely.
Here's one theory.
Another I've heard is that since our ancestors spent a lot of time on the savanahs, standing upright was a great benefit, eg. priarie dogs lookouts. We went one better cause we could see predators for long distances without having to stop and stand, whilst making our way long distances. Definately a great benefit. Think about trying to make your way across a grassland with sparse trees, and large predators lurking for instance.
Truth is, there are many probable theories.
Also, that "less energy" argument sounds weak to me. Transportion is a very important function for all animals, and also energy efficiency right up there too. You mean to say that no other mammal as caught on to this bipedal thing as yet? From the fastest cheetahs to the slowest sloths?
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
The part of the brain resposible for balance is the Cerebellum. It really hasn't changed much since we left the trees. Various structural changes in our skull allowed the cerebrum (frontal lobe) of the brain to grow larger.
Neanderthals and many species of proto-humans had flat foreheads, but walked upright.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Amazing to what dishonest lengths EVERYONE will go to promote their religion. At least evolutionists dont ask me for money.
what if an illness was the cause of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors
That seems questionable -- sounds an awful lot like Lamarckism to me.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
One of the things that bipedalism gave us was the ability to carry a larger brain. Rather than having to hold the head up, we just sortof balance it on the top of the spine.
Try crawling around for a while on all fours. Besides getting sore knees, you'll also get a sore neck from holding your head up. (Although the fact that our spine connects to the skull in a different place from that of quadrupeds may exacerbate the problem.)
But don't let this confuse you. Having a larger brain did not cause us to go bipedal just so we could hold our heads up. Evolution doesn't work that way (with quadrupeds, brains larger than what gives an immediate advantage are selected against). Instead, our ancestors developed bipedalism because it was a hunting advantage... you can see farther and not occupy your hands with the act of moving (as someone else in this forum already mentioned). But then that allowed us to develop larger brains (and thicker skulls *g*) which kinda got us cornered this way (that is, our larger brains are now a selection criterion against NOT being bipedal).
(BTW, the thicker skulls thing is serious, though, when you consider Neandertals.)
So, to answer your question, bipedalism is not a learned thing in modern humans. We evolved to be this way, we don't function well if we don't walk upright, and children pretty much figure it out on their own (although watching others may help a little).
Also, besides bipedalism, another way to be able to develop a larger brain is to be aquatic. (Floating is good.) Thus, we have dolphins.
Good thing /. put the link to the story here. I didn't really want the spies at IS at work to see me searching for the terms "Erect Monkey" to get the details...
True it makes you much slower, but it in terms of energy effeciency it's a no brainer. A famous anthropologist who's name escapes me once did a demonstration to make this point. He started chasing after a gazelle and of course was QUICKLY outpaced, but he continue to jog after it slow and steady. Everytime he'd close the gap, the gazelle woould bolt.
.
After a little while though, the gazelle was totally exhausted. On 4 legs it was much faster, but it was burning quite a bit more energy to escape. Eventaully he caught up to the gazalle and was able to basically do wahtever he wanted to it. The gazalle was simply too exhausted to keep running. .
Also keep in mind that amonst tall savanah grasses, walking upright lets you see over the grasses and see predators sooner.
In otherwords, upright locomotion certainly has a downside, but its also got alot of nicepoints. It really just depends on the niche you're trying to fill.
1. Individuals that can walk upright when needed, will have increased chances for survival, thus concentrating genes that contribute to being able to walk upright.
2. Being able to learn a behavior is also a genetic trait. Apes not able to learn an upright walking posture when needed (either due to disease or injury) will have diminished survival chances, even if physically capable of it.
Thus disease may not only have selected for the ability to walk upright, but to being able to learn behaviors. Survival would have depended on both and most certainly would be evolution in action by weeding out inferior not-able-to-walk-upright and not-able-to-learn-new-behavior individuals.
In the case of our hypothetical ape acquiring a behavior, you argue this is not contributing to evolution because he would have had the same genome with no advantage with or without the disease. BUT, his cousin without the ability to walk upright may have similarly fell prey to a polio like disease and not lived to spread his genes because he could not or would not walk upright. Thus our first ape gets to distribute his better upright walking, better behavior learning genes with less competition.
You have 2 kidneys, when only one is needed. Why have 2 if redundancy doesn't contribute to survival or evolution? In this case upright walking is a redundancy for loosing an arm, and evolution could and probably did select for it.
Letter To Iran
Construction unions would take umbrage at the phrase for sure.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
For example gravity is similarly "a fact", but the fact that Newton's "Theory of Gravity" has been superceeded by Einstein's doesn't change the fact of gravity.
For a Christian a "Theory of Evolution by Divine Intervention" would be as good an explanation as any (albeit one totally lacking evidence). But it seems to me that if you say that natural selection exists, then you have accepted Darwin's explanation for evolution (and man's origins).
you missed the point of the demonstation, (it was richard leaky by the way, son of louis and mary leaky, who did a great deal of work in africa on human origins, particuarly Australopithecus)
.. all other mammals.
the fact that he was able to run down the gazelle, was not to do with how much energy the gazelle was using, rather it was to do with the differences in heat dissipation between humans and
obviously large amounts of heat are generated by the action of the muscles in running.
the only way other mammals have of dissipating this potentially fatal heat increase is to pant, losing heat through water evaporation from the tongue.
sweating is not an good heat loss solution for most mammals, as it takes very little heat from their bodies due to the dense covering of fur that is typical of mammals (except humans). Humans being largely hairless, are able to dissipate heat much more efficiently through sweating.
it is this ability to lose the heat generated by running that enables hummans to run down pretty much any other mammal, as the animal will have to stop (or else die of heat stroke) long before the human.
Late last night I was delusional, near coma, experiencing hallucinations and walking on all fours.
And then *poof!*
This morning I was walking around on two legs!
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
So you're arguement is it is more likely that lifeforms instantly appeared as a creation of God instead of evolving over the hundreds of millions or possibly billions of years they have existed? Can you fathom how long a million years is? How about a billion? Its a really long time, y'know.
Why haven't christian scientists provided us a "theory" to explain this? It is scientificly provable is it not?
theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
We ask for data and experimentation to prove your hypothesis that your God, the one that has a son named Jesus, is The Creator. That's all we ask. Then Intelligent Design might be taken a little more seriously, but it is hardly being ignored. But what about Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism. They can't all be right can they?
That's why we have science. It at least tries to derive truth by observing reality and recording the facts in the most objective manner possible given our extremely subjective human perspectives. And then it gives up trying to insist its authority when it has been proven wrong. So its really quite simple. Prove it wrong. Use science against itself.
I won't pretend to know anything about stem cell research.
Intelligent Design
Evilution
We have observed and recorded the observations of both mutation and natural selection in our history. Yet we have no recorded evidence of the existence of this Intelligent Designer. Can you please explain this for lazy potheads like myself who probably don't have a freakin clue?
I might have a hypothesis to explain this intelligence in all these complex lifeforms. Actually I doubt its a real hypothesis, but anyway here it goes. The laws of physics describe the 4 known forces of nature and might appear intelligent to someone new to science. But as we learn more we find more mathematical complexity in the very fabric of our universe than is taught in our most prestigious universities. These "laws" of physics are highly dependant on our perspective within this universe. And our perspective is rather limitted compared to the whole of our macro/micro universe. So its highly unlikely that we will know-it-all anytime in the near future. And it will take even longer when we have religious and/or political groups insisting their new "science" is more accurate than those theories that have withstood hundreds of years of criticism. Propoganda and belief don't count as scientific evidence, sorry.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science says:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science edu
> Evolution runs into trouble at the cellular level with the high level of complexity that has yet to be replicated from base chemicals by modern labs. If, with the input of directed effort by an intelligent person, we can't generate what the cells that all life is built from, then the house of cards falls down.
The funniest thing about the entire "Intelligent Design" movement (and that's a big pile of funny stuff) is the claim that the inability of intelligent people to do something is evidence that only an intelligent being could have done it.
(Now go back and read your argument as quoted above.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Given the intense level of debate, and the amount of heat as opposed to light from both sides of the evolution debate that ensued from the story, are we allowed to mod the whole article ;-)
-1 flamebait?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14
Without knowing too much about evolution theory, it would seem to me that intelligence would always be a selective factor in all species.
Actually, the evidence would point to the opposite. So far as we know, over the entire history of life on this planet only one species has achieved human-level intelligence - ours. The most successful species on the planets are nothing more than tiny biological machines - insects - and they show no indication whatsoever of developing bigger brains, nor have they over hundreds of millions of years.
Even for the 'brainy' animals like gorillas and chimpanzees brain growth stopped some time ago. They continued to evolve in other ways, but brain growth wasn't one of them. In fact, most of the variations of proto-humans that died out also didn't develop brains much beyond that of a chimpanzee, although they did continue to evolve in different areas, some of them rather specialized.
Some folks speculate that there's a limit to how useful a big brain is compared to how much energy it consumes (the human brain typically consumes about 40% of the body's total energy). Beyond this limit the increased survival advantage is relatively trivial in comparison to energy consumption, which means that the larger brain is actually a defect in terms of survival. The theory is that it takes some very specialized circumstances to promote brain growth beyond this point, until the 'plateau' is surpassed and the brain is once again large enough to confer a survival advantage that outweighs its energy requirements. It would explain why apes aren't developing larger brains, and why nearly all of our evolutionary relatives developed a larger brain to a point, then seemed to stop although they still evolved and adapted to their environment.
Human-level intelligence could very well be a combination of mild defects that occurred during a very forgiving period in Earth's ecological history, in a place where food was easy to come by and these defects didn't compromise survival. A certain selective set of very special cirumstances that lasted long enough to result in our big-brained ancestors (and our relatives, the Neanderthals), but in any other time or place would've killed those with the defects.
People also assume that human evolution will continue to result in bigger brains, although there's no evidence to support this. It might very well be that the next step in our evolution won't be larger brains but more social, community-oriented ones with a suppression of violent instincts. That certainly seems to be more advantageous, especially when you already have a brain large enough to make yourself the dominant species and what you really need is a method to avoid species self-destruction.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
umm, didn't UC San Diego discover genetic evidence of macro evolution in 2000/2001 (relating, IIRC, to leg pairs on insects or some such) when they demonstrated a protein which caused the organism to develop one less pair of legs.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as Scientific Fact. Everything, EVERYTHING, is a theory; even though many (gravity, thermodynamics) are discussed as fact. No theory stands longer than its disproof; dont yabber about it you fscking christian psycopath; disprove it and it will go away.
Just my $0.02
err!
jak
Disclaimer: My disparaging remark about christians should not lead you to conclude I am anti-christian. I spread my dislike of religion equally.
Here's a thought though. If it's a new species, then who was the first one going to breed with? Wouldn't this mutation have to simultaneously occured to two of them in proximity so they could mate? Talk about long odds.
Or maybe it was already part of their genetic code and simply rare?
The problem is that creationism is pseudo-science
/. article this all stems from has proven that some evolutionists will grab at absolutely anything in order to say they have the slightest bit of proof.
The problem with this post is that it has no ground to stand on.
The sad truth is that you can take any nutcase concept, throw a thousand million years into it, and with no trouble at all, you've got the less competent side of the science community eating out of your hands. It's not very intelligent in the big scheme of things, but some people just want to believe whatever coincidence-theory spans the most years. If the logic common to these lower scientists held any ground, I could say that Manhattan evolved out of rocks and snails if I tossed a few hundred millenniums into the equation.
For one, one does not read a book intended for spiritual enlightenment as a history book
Now we're just shooting off in so many random directions that it's no wonder this post supports evolutionism. First: What book? Did this book create life? No? Then your argument and much of evolutionism is relying on something that has nothing to do with the subject. If you wanted to rant about some Jahovah's Witness that came to your door then there are other, more reasonable concepts to use.
Second, if the "History cannot be spiritual" logic follows through then I can declare George Washington's biography to be a book written for spiritual enlightenment, and that would turn it into a big conspiracy lie and whatnot.
Here we see evolutionism in a nutshell: Fragmented, inconsistent, unable to present an ounce of solid logic. All-in-all, nothing more than a misplaced rebellion against certain spiritual people and at most, a thoughtless piece of ammo to up the reputations of emerging pseudo-scientists. And if anything, the
Thank you and goodnight!
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
I think you're focusing purely on the former, and completely ignoring the latter.
But a broken-legged puppy that can still manage to walk (on three legs, or however) is MORE likely to survive than a broken-legged puppy that can't manage to walk at all. But a broken-arm monkey that can still manage to walk (on two legs, or however) is MORE likely to survive than a broken-arm monkey that can't manage to walk at all.Just posted on this elsewhere. The idiocy, and power, of the Religious Right in America is going to be one of the prime reasons for the decline of the USA.
The USA is now loosing heavily in stem cell and related areas of reseach. There's an increasing rate of migration of good life scientists out of the states and into Europe. Of course it's not absolute, but in this prime technology of the 21st century America is going to loose, and loose badly, in innovation to the EU.
And that's just at the top. Maybe more important the USA is loosing from below. With the spread of both the teaching of 'Creationism' and the lack of teaching of Evolution (where it's judged too controvesial to teach either) the USA is both loosing potential life scientists and producing a climate where life science research is regarded with suspicion and undervalued. Again of course it's not absolute, but it'll be enough to erode any advantage the US has and pass the torch to Europe.
Now who knows how important the biological sciences will eventually be in terms of society and economy? Maybe, as has been the case up to now, traditional engineering will continue to dominate and the relative decline of the USA will not be too great. On the other hand maybe the future is heavily dominated by molecular biology. Maybe we can treat aging, design babies to remove genetic defects and increase IQ, grow biological computers, use biological engineering rather than chemical engineering and much else.
Some of these may be desirable, other not, but one thing is certain - in Europe, when such innovations are researched and developed the decision to use them or not will be made on democratic, pragmatic, secular grounds. In the USA the decision will be made on the basis of a 2000+ year old text.
I forget what it was called, but this was a method used by some traditional south africans. Find the fittest and fastest dear/gazelle (whatever i cant remember that too!) and chase it. After 10 to 20km it would just be exausted and just lie down at which stage it became dinner. Interestingly of the tribe/hunter group chasing it only one person would chase, the others would just lag behind until the prey was worn out. By chasing the fastest and strongest, they always ensured that each generation was slower and thus made it easier for the next...
Let us not forget that Darwin actually aruged that acquired traits are not inherited.
Now if you continue to believe in Lamarck's theories of evolution than this is significant, but since his theories have been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community for the past 200 years, this is just a messed up ape that now walks on two legs and has absolutely no significance in the future evolution of apes.
Flame what you will, but this sounds like an isolated case of adaptation...whether due to weakened stomach or weakened arms, etc.
To rush off and cry "evolution" and "darwinism" etc. seems premature IMHO. Granted, you could say a genetic disposition existed that enabled the subject to adapt as such in the presence of adversity, but to prove that definitively as the cause (as opposed to raw adaptation) would take deep amounts of work, if that were even the case to begin with.
It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.