Re: naked bipeds
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Sat, 21 Oct 95 13:32:23 GMT
In article <466u69$p6d@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu "Alex Duncan" writes:
> As far as naked bipedalism goes: you seem fixated on the idea that
> functional hairlessness and bipedalism must have evolved at the same
> time. This is not a fixation shared by paleoanthropologists.
>
> Australopithecines were probably not functionally hairless, because:
<snips>
When you see a species with two striking and unique adaptions,
either one of which is enough to mark it off from all its
relatives and which (a) have no obvious link, and (b) developed
in a short time period, then it is parsimonious seek an
explanation which covers both.
The resistance by paleoanthropologists to any such program
would appear to be irrational and require an explanation of
a sociological nature.
Paul.
|