Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists

Paul Crowley (
Tue, 24 Sep 96 19:19:01 GMT

In article <01bba9ec$c93e4d20$> "John Waters" writes:

> Paul Crowley <> wrote in article
> > My argument is that the first step towards bipedalism must
> > necessarily have been the putting down of the infant. >
> JW: Again I am sure you are right. In the early days of the
> transition to bipedalism the lack of a proper bipedal physiology
> would have led to the onset of rapid fatigue. This would
> necessitate plenty of rest stops, when the baby would be put
> down.

No, No. You're missing my point. Forget rest stops. I'm saying
that the female must have put the infant down for particular
reasons arising from the new niche (probably one of wading and
swimming). This was a drastic break with a >65 Myr primate
behaviour. Once the infant was down, bipedalism became possible,
altriciality happened (i.e. the babies that lay still in one
place survived) and fixed home bases and much else followed on.