Re: Crowley Hot-Shot... was Re: tree-climbing hominid
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 13 Oct 95 23:51:15 GMT
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.951013094747.3351Bfirstname.lastname@example.org>
email@example.com "David Froehlich" writes:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, Paul Crowley wrote:
> > 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.
> You assume that bipedalism must have been very difficult
> to attain based on what I view as untestable statements about the cost to
> a bipedal organism over being quadrupedal.
> Why don't you examine the propositions in the intial paragraph and test
> them before assuming them. Answer the question "How would I know if they
> were wrong".
Hominid mothers cannot do those things now. Primate (hominoid) ancestor
mothers could. The change happened in connection with bipedalism. (I'd
prefer to define the change *as* the acquisition of bipedalism, but that's
not quite the same point.) What else makes any possible sense?
If A=B and B=C, therefore A=C. Asking how I "test" whether A=C or how
I "know" whether A=C does not makes sense to me. The same applies to
the questions you suggest. If the statements are wrong, then the laws
of logic must suddenly have been abolished. Or am I missing something
completely? Please enlighten me.