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

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Richard Foy: "NDE was Re: Proper Gander"
• Previous message: James Howard: "Re: Clarification on relationship between Morphology and genes"

In article <31E4DCF5.624F@hgu.mrc.ac.uk>,
James Borrett <jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>Richard Foy wrote:
> Karen <karen@uab.edu> wrote:
>> It is not as though the
>> >baby could cling to its' mothers' breasts leaving the mothers' hands
>> >free while travelling.
>>
>> When I read this speculation it didn't seem to reasonable to me that
>> infants could hold on to a mothers breasts either.
>>
>
>Maybe I was a bit unclear, but by saying the baby could hold onto the
>breast I didn't mean it could support its own weight, but that it could
>use its hands to direct the nipple into its mouth to make breast feeding
>easier.

That makes more sense to me. But again I don't have any direct
experience, expect at too young an age to remember if it is a
reasonable guess as to the probability.

-- 

"The form is the content in motion, and the content is the form at

rest."  --Northrup Frye


URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/udc.html Unity and Diversity

• Next message: Richard Foy: "NDE was Re: Proper Gander"
• Previous message: James Howard: "Re: Clarification on relationship between Morphology and genes"