Re: AAT Theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Harry Erwin: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: naked bipeds"

hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) graced us with the following
words:

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

>>chimp quadrupedalism are about equally energetically efficient. This
>>suggests to me that australopith bipedalism was no less efficient than
>>chimp quadrupedalism (or chimp bipedalism).

>So if efficiency of chimp biped is equal to quadruped motion then
>there'd be no preference. Ditto for the australopith.

>It seems they should have stayed quadruped and not evolved in
>any direction because of motion efficiency. That's always the
>problem when taking ideas which are not really quantified and
>then turning them into binary, and then pushing a view point
>based on weak arguments.

Alex Duncan is referring to a study that actually did provide
measurements of energetic efficiency in chimpanzees. I quoted that
study in my message to Troy.

>--

> Regards, Mark
> http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey

Phil Nicholls pnich@globalone.net
"To ask a question you must first know most of the answer"
-Robert Sheckley

• Next message: Harry Erwin: "Re: chimps on the savanna? Nooooo....."
• Previous message: Phil Nicholls: "Re: naked bipeds"