Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 08 Dec 96 23:09:53 GMT
In article <32a92745.613677@news.NL.net>
G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net "Gerrit Hanenburg" writes:
> Your personal obsession with the mother-infant dyad in bipedal
> hominids had nothing to do with the discussion about a suggested lack
> of theories concerning the origin of bipedalism.
This would be a ludicrous assertion, indeed it would be an
outrageous charge, if made against a researcher involved in
the study of any other animal -- that he/she wrongly believed
the reproductive unit should be the principal object of study.
> Criticizing the field
> for a lack of theories concerning that subject is not justified.
> The reason that infant carrying in early hominids is not a major point
> of discussion is because it is not a major problem.
How is this known when the question is not studied?
> A bipedal hominid can support its child better during terrestrial
> locomotion than a chimpanzee mother. Bipedal carrying is a more secure
> form of carrying than quadrupedalism, where the mother needs all four
> limbs in locomotion.
You can't, of course, quote any research papers to support
these assertions. There aren't any. The whole profession is
based on BS.
> Read the section "Support and Transport" in
> Goodall's paper "Behaviour of free-living chimpanzees in the Gombe
> Stream Reserve" (Animal Behaviour Monographs 1:163-311 (1968)) and
> find out how "secure" carrying of young infants in chimpanzees really
> is.
Infant-carrying is a difficult task, and a source of constant
problems. In theory, chimps have a perfect solution. In
practice, it does not work out like that. Isn't it just as
well that there is NO theory about hominid infant carrying?
If ever any profession has condemned itself with its own words,
your posting is a classic.
Paul.
|