Re: aat-reply to Moore.

David L Burkhead (
13 Jul 1995 01:03:12 GMT

In article <3tnkku$> (Pat Dooley) writes:

>When your guys explain why full time bipedalism is unique to humans,
>why no other primate occupying a similar range of habitats failed to
>a similarly "advantageous" mode of locomotion, and how it evolved without
>conferring fatal disadvantages on the intermediate forms between the
>original mode and 100% bipedalism, I might take your argument from

When yourguys are able to explain why not a _single_ species,
besides your postulated proto-humans, has evolved into bipedalism from
an aquatic lifestyle, I might take your hypothesi, I'm tempted to say
"myth," seriously.

_No_ animal, not one, has ever become bipedal as a result of an
aquatic or sem-aquatic lifestyle. When asked to point to a bipedal,
aquatic mammal the only thing that has been cited here has been
pequins, which are, of course _not_ mammals. They are _birds_ and,
like all birds, ae bipedal. And since they were birds before they
were aquatic, they were bipedal before they were aquatic.

David L. Burkhead

Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine

Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831