Re: Bipedalism facts to deal with

J. Moore (
Mon, 20 Nov 95 17:30:00 -0500

> "J. Moore" writes:
> The list Paul posted was of situations in which primates today have
> been observed to indulge in bipedal locomotion. This was quite
> clear from the preceding sentence, which Paul did not copy.
> Removing context from quotes seems to be a popular AAT move.

PC> It's more that making false accusations seems to be de rigeur for
PC> PA'ists.
PC> My quotation was NOT taken out of context.

You lopped off the preceding part explaining what the list was,
leaving only a list. That's taking something out of its context.

You also are constructing a sort of "false context" when you
reconstruct the original post as you did, leaving out major parts
while claiming that "all the relevant bits" are there. I don't
know why you are so upset by there being an explanation for
bipedalism; nor why you are so upset that people attempt to
educate those online who ask about it.

> JM> shift toward increased frequency of bipedalism. Very likely it
> JM> occurred under conditions that are likely to result in bipedalism
> JM> in living apes today". Then he offered a list of situations when
> JM> apes today have many times been observed using bipedalism in the
> JM> wild:

PC> Phil Nichols said nothing (that Jim quoted) about " . . observed
PC> using bipedalism in the wild".

I was attempting to explain to you what you so obviously did not
understand, that when Phil said about bipedalism that "very likely
it occurred under conditions that are likely to result in bipedalism
in living apes today" he was actually really honestly talking
about real situations where bipedalism is actually used by living
apes today. I took the trouble to explain this because it has
become evident that you're lacking familiarity with the concept of
saying things that have support from actual rather than imagined data.

PC> I am perfectly happy with the observations that chimps use bipedalism
PC> for about 10% of the time. I am *not* happy that hominids could have
PC> developed bipedalism while living in the same environment as chimps
PC> without a very special explanation.

I'm sorry that you're unhappy that there is a perfectly good
explanation for a land-based transition to bipedalism.

PC> None is forthcoming from the PA community.

How would you know? You've shown no sign of ever having read any
paleoanthropological writings and research. Besides, judging from
how you misrepresented these posts, you don't seem to actually be
interested in such explanations, except to distort them.

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *