Re: Crowley Hot-Shot... was Re: tree-climbing hominid
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 13 Oct 95 13:15:27 GMT
In article <60.3287.7295.0N1F8B29@canrem.com>
email@example.com "J. Moore" writes:
> Pa> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk "Paul Crowley" writes:
> Pa> (h) The description of this "partially bipedal hominid" must
> Pa> explain how its form of life exerted a selective pressure on each of
> Pa> some 50,000 to 100,000 generations towards becoming more bipedal in
> Pa> each generation.
> Although some folks (i.e. Gould) have tried to put this sort of
> view in the mind of oldsters such as Darwin, it does not match any
> currently accepted evolutionary theory I am aware of, and that
> includes Darwin's work in *On the Origin of Species*. Your
> above-quoted sentence is the most foolishly gradualist position
> I've ever read.
Could't we have some _constructive_ criticism for a change, Jim?
For instance, (a) What's your *rough* estimate of how long it took
for full bipedalism to develop? (And when was that?)
(b) Roughly how many generations of hominids did it take?
(c) Was there a selective pressure towards bipedalism throughout
(d) Or did they vary their behaviour, habitat and/or lifestyle
during that period?
I presume you accept that there were major disadvantages in becoming
bipedal: i.e. the mother had to use one or both arms to carry her
child everywhere she went, meaning that she could not run, climb,
use a club, or throw rocks when in the presence of a predator, nor
could she sleep in a tree at night. In fact the viability of her
existence is questionable.
So the advantages of becoming bipedal must have been enormous.
Someday I'd like to know what you thought they were.