Re: fossil foot bones
H. M. Hubey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
16 Oct 1995 17:30:55 -0400
ZU03725@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu (the skeptic) writes:
>No offense anyone. I only meant to make it clear that while the pongids are
>both terrestrial and arboreal, they do not walk on two feet most of the time.
>As far as I am concerned, that fact has absolutely nothing at all to do with
>water but with morphology of pelvis and other endoskeletal morphology. My
Everyone is talking about morphology, (of the foot, of the legs, and
of the pelvis and more).
The point is that water would help to stand in that position and
would provide a selection mechanism for those with longer legs
and taller ones since they'd be able to escape the shallows and
hence the land predators. it would also support them to stand
in the upright position and facilitate hand use.
>are adapted to arboreal and terrestrial living and that as they gradually
>become more and more bipedal, I would speculate that it is possible that our
Yes, "gradually" and "more and more bipedal".
That's the trick. There was no advantage to it since they
run faster on all fours. If they want to use their hands they
can sit and do it like chimps. If they want to carry things
they'd be pretty tired and I don't think anyone seriously wants
to say that the little critters during the time of the early
split walked around like foot soldiers carrying pounds of
provisions, arms and sticks and stones. So the reasons for it
are completely lacking, especially if we want to throw them
to the savannah immediately. If on the other hand we don't
change the niche then why did they become bipedal at all if
the chimps and gorillas didn't.
Do you see the conundrum of the savannah theorist?