Re: The Gathering Hypothesis

Lemonhead (
Thu, 18 May 1995 02:36:09 -0500

On Thu, 18 May 1995, Ben Diebold wrote:

> > But you were talking about a *behavior* (a mating display). *Behaviors*
> > do not *create* attributes. In the case of bipedalism (and probably
> I'm a naive lurker on this forum, so I'd like to interject with a question
> about this, because I am confused. I thought it was appropriate to look
> for behavior, and then for morphology. If attributes are thought of in
> terms of morphology, then is it wrong to think about behaviors creating
> attributes?
You're right Ben. I was gonna reply to that, but I didn't
becuase I thought I was missing something, but I guess I didn't miss
anything. He pretty much has it completly backwards.
An example that pops to mind: Increased bipedal behavior
resulted in a whole lot of attributes: short toes, an abducted big toe, a
strong heel, a stable ankle, and an arched foot-- namely all the
attributes of a human (and whatever made the Laetoli footprints) foot.

you y suck
you Well, I used to get all o Kevin Karpiak suck
you fancy and stuff with my u University of Illinois suck
you .sigs, but now I'm just s at Champiagn-Urbana suck
you tired of doing that. u Student of Psychology suck
you So you're gonna have to c and Anthropology suck
you live with just this one k suck
you until maybe I get bored. yousuckyousuckyousuckyousuckyousuckyousuck
you Or maybe, if you are a o suck
you really big loser you can u Reach me at: suck
you read my border becuase s suck
you it's pretty much true - u or suck
you You do suck. c suck
you k suck