Richard Foy (
Sun, 14 Jul 1996 19:18:40 GMT

In article <4s9ltf$>,
david l burkhead <> wrote:
>In article <> (Richard Foy) writes:
I admire your skill in posting. It could qualify you to run for
public office.

You left off the premise of my post.

>>1. If newborns kick in water, it may or may not be an indication that
>>the kicking is an aquatic adaption.
> Perhaps you should explain how you are using the term
>"indication" here. If a newborn continues a behavior that it exhibits
>on land in the water it provides no special evidence of aquatic
>anything. The only way kicking in water might be evidence of aquatic
>adaptation would be if it were a behavior not observed out of water.

Is my statement wrong or correct?

>>2. If newborns kick when born on land it tends to support the idea
>>that newborns have an instinct to kick. It provides as by itself
>>absolutely no data regarding the cause of the instinct.
> Exactly. It provides absolutely no data regarding the cause of
>the instinct--even if the behavior continues when the newborn is in
>the water. If the behavior were something seen _only_ in water, then
>it _might_ be evidence of some kind of aquatic past. Since it is not,
>it isn't.

The post you are responding to was a discussion of your logic not a
discussion of water kick > aquatic ape.

Have you considered running for poltical office.

You left out my concusion.

> Newborns kick. That they continue to do so in water does not
>provide evidence of anything. I suspect that if you took an infant up
>in the Space Shuttle and chucked it out the airlock it would continue
>to kick in vaccuum (for a few seconds at least). Would this provide
>evidence of a "spacefaring ape"?

Newborns or adults kicked out iof an airlock, without a space suit,
would not kick for a few seconds. They would "explode" instantly.

That does not of coure provide evidence that humans are made of

"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at
rest." --Northrup Frye

URL Unity and Diversity