Re: Specification for theories on human evolution

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: J. Moore: "Re: reproductive strategi"
• Previous message: Elaine Morgan: "Tears, and the Underwood."
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Specification for theories on human evolution"
• Next in thread: Alex Duncan: "Re: Specification for theories on human evolution"

In article <816309997snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> Paul Crowley,
Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk writes:

>e11 The reasons for the development of bipedalism must be clearly shown.

Your essay on a specification for a "theory" of human evolution is
interesting, but misguided. You seem to expect different things from
science than what science delivers. Let's take the issue above, for
example. Can you explain exactly what it is you mean by "reasons"? Lots
of potential adaptive advantages for bipedalism have been offered, but
apparently they don't qualify as "reasons". So, please clarify the issue
for us -- what is a "reason", and how is it that the adaptive advantages
that have been mentioned in other posts don't make the grade?

Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086
512-471-4206
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu

• Next message: J. Moore: "Re: reproductive strategi"
• Previous message: Elaine Morgan: "Tears, and the Underwood."
• Maybe in reply to: Paul Crowley: "Specification for theories on human evolution"
• Next in thread: Alex Duncan: "Re: Specification for theories on human evolution"