Re: Alex's gibbon-like CA
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 12 Nov 95 23:36:32 GMT
In article <48587m$84i@news.global1.net>
pnich@globalone.net "Phil Nicholls" writes:
> Gee, I thought we were talking about the origin of bipedalism, in
> which case we are not talking about hominid speciation at all but
> rather the hominid-pongid divergence which would have been pongid
> speciation when it occurred.
This is sheer bad thinking. It's the best way to confuse the issue
thoroughly. Even IF it was true (and I'm pretty sure that the odds
against it are zillions to one) it's a bad way to try to sort the
problems out. I've never seen it before . . . . . . so I think we
can safely forget it . . . . . Phew!
> In any case, I am indeed trying to focus on the origin of bipedalism.
> In seeking the origin of bipedalism it is wise to look at modern
> primates and try to understand when the resort to bipedalism. When do
> monkeys and apes walk upright, under what circumstances?
It's one way to consider the matter. That's all. One way. You
should also try a few others: like "What special niche could the
protohominids have occupied?" or "What benefits could justify the
enormous costs of becoming secondarily altricial?" or "How could
these creatures survive without climbing trees at night?"
Why are these mundane questions ignored by the PA community? That
is what I find so deeply puzzling. Why do you all stick in that
ghastly rut of looking at how and when chimps or gibbons stand?
It's been worked to death. Ain't you got no imagination?
Paul.
|