Re: crowley's memory

Paul Crowley (
Mon, 13 Nov 95 18:25:00 GMT

In article <487gsn$> "Alex Duncan" writes:

> writes:
> >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.
> Gee whiz, Paul, I hate to mention this, but we've dealt with these very
> issues, here in this very newsgroup. Are some of your "memory neurons"
> being selected against? Or do you just not recall it because you didn't
> like the answers? Let me summarize something for you: secondary
> altriciality and "not climbing trees at night" were not issues for the
> earliest bipeds, and thus not issues that we need to deal with when we're
> thinking about the origin of bipedalism. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You make my point for me, Alex. Good science does not come from
shutting your eyes to inconvenient problems.