Re: Crowley Hot-Shot... was Re: tree-climbing hominid

Paul Crowley (
Sat, 14 Oct 95 22:31:07 GMT

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.951014115211.28981A-100 "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.
> I accept nothing of the kind.

All I'm asking about is the disadvantages of *becoming* bipedal. This
happened. So it had some advantages (we would disagree about what
they were - but we are not discussing that). Please answer:
(a) Did this process also have disadvantages?
(b) If so, would they include those I mentioned above?

> Any primate mother has disadvantages when
> rearing offspring, but they seem to get along quite fine? How do they do
> this? There are a variety of responses including parental investment
> either in terms of protection or food sharing. Why are these not an
> option? Especially since all hominoids live in comunal groups.

You are just ducking the issue here. You are saying that all sorts
of responses are possible. Responses to what?

> You still have not addressed my basic question of how you would know if
> any of the asumptions are wrong?

I just don't understand your point. Would you mind listing the
assumptions that I appear to be making, to which the question
"how would I know if it was wrong?" could properly be addressed.