|
|
Re: Becoming altricial/bi
Troy Kelley (tkelley@hel4.brl.mil)
Wed, 4 Oct 1995 18:57:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Becoming altricial/bi
From: J. Moore, j#d#.moore@canrem.com
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 95 10:47:00 -0500
In article <60.3043.7295.0N1F7984@canrem.com> J. Moore,
j#d#.moore@canrem.com writes:
>
>JM> > You offer no support for your contention that "the long period was
>JM> > already there for physical development". Infants having feet
>JM> > adapted for easier and more frequent bipedalism would not depend
>JM> > on a period of longer infant development, as you suggest.
>
>Pa> You're missing the main point of my posting. I really (at this
stage)
>Pa> have no interest in brain development.
>
>That is becoming painfully evident.
>
>Pa> I agree that it was mostly much
>Pa> later (2.5-1.5mya?) but how, why or when, does not concern me now.
>
>It is demonstrably tied in with our longer infant development
>period, and therefore with the subject of altricial infants.
>
>Pa> My case is that the development of *bipedalism* necessarily involved
an
>Pa> altricial period. The physical development would be that you see in
>Pa> your own children. They have to learn to walk. But the real thrust
of
Yes.. they have to learn to walk. And it is interesting to note that much
of what Hardy developed his originial AAT theory about was the fact that
infants can actually swim BEFORE they can walk. I hope I don't have to
defend this post. I have posted references to this post before. But
normal healthy human infants are capable of breath control, and swiming
actions which propel them in a specific direction up to the age of about
3 or 4 months, at which point they misterously loose this ability. My
guess is that they become too heavy to be completely supported by their
fat deposits.
Does say a lot though, swimming before walking?
Troy
|