Alex Duncan (email@example.com)
13 Nov 1995 13:23:35 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> Paul Crowley,
>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.
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086