Re: bipedalism
Kiran Wagle (groo@netcom.com)
Sat, 15 Apr 1995 10:58:04 GMT
Elaine@desco.demon.co.uk (Elaine Morgan) wrote:
> The fact remains that ...none of them gets endorsed by a majority of the
> peer group as sufficiently persuasive to make further speculation
> redundant.
Can you say the AAT gets endorsed by a majority of the peer group as
sufficiently persuasive?
> You are only saying what one reviewer said, that we have a plethora of
> theories about bipedalism rather than the paucity that AAT suggests.
> Can't you see it comes to the same thing?
It doesn't seem like the same thing to me. If AAT suggests a paucity of
theories, it's one idea amongst very few ideas, and as such may carry more
weight than it would if we have lots plausible ideas that don't require
this extra step (of dwelling in water.)
> As long as anthropologists insist on posing the wrong question "Why
> did bipedalism emerge on the savannah?" they will continue to get a
> long string of half-baked and far-fetched speculations. The answer to
> "Why did bipedalism emerge in water?" does not have a plethora of
> answers, it has one. Unlike any of the savannah ones it can be
> expressed in a sentence: to keep their heads above water.
Awright. But: DID bipedalism emerge in water? That's a big claim, IMO.
~ Kiran <groo@netcom.com>
--
"I know that money can't buy happiness.
But it isn't happiness I want. It's money."--Bizarro by Dan Piraro
1628 5th St NW Washington DC 20001 +1 202 483 3157 +1 202 483 3373
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/home.html
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/entropy/contradance/dance-home.html
|