Re: An alternative to ST and AAT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Rohinton Collins: "Re: Why is Homo sapiens hairless?"
• Previous message: Serge Moes: "Re: Please Chant This Shamanistic Chant With Us (at PIU)!"
• Maybe in reply to: Newington Reference Library: "An alternative to ST and AAT"
• Next in thread: Diarmid Murray: "Re: An alternative to ST and AAT"

T&B Schmal wrote:
>
> In article <846372050snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk>, Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > the first bipedal hominids would have been less
> > effective at terrestrial progression than their quadrupedal
> > cousins.
> >
>
> This seems to me to be a difficult thing to assert. Now, if we knew the
> sequence of changes and how long it all took, maybe. But as things now
> stand I think you've got a bit of a stretch, here, Paul.
>
> Tom Schmal

I think we first need to define -effective-. This is speculation on my
part, but I would not be surprised to find that a chimp can outrun a
human in a sprint, although we may well be more efficient walkers and
long range endurance runners. Any references welcome.

Hob

• Next message: Rohinton Collins: "Re: Why is Homo sapiens hairless?"
• Previous message: Serge Moes: "Re: Please Chant This Shamanistic Chant With Us (at PIU)!"
• Maybe in reply to: Newington Reference Library: "An alternative to ST and AAT"
• Next in thread: Diarmid Murray: "Re: An alternative to ST and AAT"