Re: chimp bipeds

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: AAT Theory"
• Previous message: LWHNY: "Looking for H-net address"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "chimp bipeds"
• Next in thread: Phil Nicholls: "Re: chimp bipeds"

Alex Duncan <aduncan@mail.utexas.edu> writes:

>Hubey wrote:

>>>1) It would be easier for them to adopt the erect stand since
>>>the water would support them. Chimps don't have their hips directly
>>>underneath them. It's harder for them to stand up erect and their
>>>muscles would tire sooner. It would be hell for them to carry
>>>anything bipedally. This would not happen in water.

>It has been demonstrated (w/ those omnipotent numbers) that chimps are no
>less effecient (use no more energy) moving bipedally than quadrupedally.
>I'd give you references, but we all know that would be pointless.

I've already responded to this.

If oxygen consumption is what you are talking about it's
the wrong proxy for the wrong variable.

A fat man won't have any problems floating on water,and hence
can move with use of little energy. That doesn't mean that he'd
be in perfect shape to survive in the ocean.

The first thing you have to do is to understand what you read.

Carrying things bipedally for a chimp is a big problem. Period.

-- 



				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey

• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: AAT Theory"
• Previous message: LWHNY: "Looking for H-net address"
• Maybe in reply to: Alex Duncan: "chimp bipeds"
• Next in thread: Phil Nicholls: "Re: chimp bipeds"