Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists
Gerrit Hanenburg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 26 Sep 1996 11:40:58 GMT
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
>>Chimp, gorilla, orang and gibbon infants do *not* hold onto hair.
>>It would not be strong or plentiful enough and they're much too heavy.
>>They hold onto their mothers' *bodies* using their long arms and legs.
>>You can see this in any zoo.
>This is an old matter; it is also very minor. The main issue was
>whether a hominid female with a vertical trunk could (or would) carry
>an infant in the ventral or dorsal position. You said it would,
>disagreeing with what appears to be the common view that they carried
>infants in their arms. Of course, carrying-in-arms would substantially
>disable the hominid female by comparison with its ape cousins.
I do not disagree with the "common" view,I simply propose an early
intermediate stage during which a habitually bipedal hominid still
carries the infant in ventral position,possibly pressing it close with
one hand while proceeding on the ground.A stage in which the infant
has not yet lost the ability to cling onsupported for brief
periods,allowing the mother to ascend to above ground levels to feed
or in case of emergency.
>What's the point in quoting chunks from textbooks and learned papers?
>This is not an abstruse topic; anyone can readily check it - by going
>to a zoo, by looking at TV or at pictures in books. It's also so minor
>that I can see little point in debating it. Insofar as we disagree, I
>think it must be on terminology.
It was a serious disagreement about an important factual detail within
a wider context.You were wrong about it and these references clearly
point that out.It's not about terminology,but about facts.