Re: tree-climbing hominid

J. Moore (
Tue, 10 Oct 95 09:18:00 -0500

PC> I was referring to all bipedal hominids - those which have lost the
PC> grasping capacity in their feet.

Ad> Your entire body of reasoning rests on a single premise: "any primate
Ad> biped must have a form of bipedalism that is functionally equivalent to
Ad> that of modern H. sapiens." I challenge you to question this premise.

Ad> Alex Duncan

Paul seems to have a fixation on the idea of quadrupedal parents
with infants who have fully modern human feet and a fully modern
human altricial infancy. Such an idea is so ridiculous that I
used it a few months back as an obvious example of how adaptations
that would work well in one set of circumstances would be disastrous
in another.

Then of course there's his recent, equally ridiculous, contention
that bipedalism should be defined not by what an animal does, but
whether an infant can grasp with its feet. From Paul Crowley's
post of 1 Oct 95:

PC> A definition of bipedalism should not look at the foot, leg or pelvis of
PC> the adult; it should focus on the deterioration in the grasping ability
PC> of the infant hominid foot. Either an infant can, with four limbs,
PC> support its own weight or it cannot. Only when >50% of infant hominids
PC> can no longer do this, should the species be regarded as bipedal.

Really bizarre thought processes there...

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *