Re: crowley's memory

Phil Nicholls (
Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:35:14 GMT

Paul Crowley <> raged:

>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.

Good science is based on dealing with facts.

Why do you think early hominids didn't climb trees?

Why do you think early hominids showed secondary altriciality?

What facts lead you to these conclusions? I'll save you the trouble.
None. You are making assumptions about early hominids based on
modern hominids (one of the major flaws of the AAH) and there is no
evidence to support those assumptions. Until you have evidence we
don't need to "deal" with it.

Phil Nicholls
"To ask a question you must first know most of the answer"
-Robert Sheckley