Re: Bipedalism and theorizing... was Re: Morgan and creationists
John Waters (jdwaters@dircon.co.uk)
26 Sep 1996 09:57:40 GMT
Paul Crowley <Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> wrote in article > > >
> No, No. You're missing my point. Forget rest stops. I'm
saying
> that the female must have put the infant down for particular
> reasons arising from the new niche (probably one of wading and
> swimming). This was a drastic break with a >65 Myr primate
> behaviour.
JW: Yes, I did miss your point; and probably a lot of previous
correspondence on the matter. As you say, such a development
would be a drastic break with past primate behaviour. Too
drastic in my opinion.
To me, it is inconceivable that a relatively advanced primate
mother would put down her new born baby, and go off wading or
swimming. The nearest parallel with this sort of behaviour is
that of the Indian Tree Shrew. This very early primate leaves
its young on the ground in a nest after their birth. It returns
to them every 48 hours to suckle them.
However, advanced primates who typically invest 3.5 to 4 years
of their life to feeding and rearing their young, will not part
with their baby for at least three months. In addition, simply
because a baby lies still does not mean that it is helpless.
> altriciality happened (i.e. the babies that lay still in one
place survived)
JW: An extension of the period of helplessness would not come
about simply through infantile inactivity.
>Once the infant was down, bipedalism became possible,
JW: This did not happen with the Indian Tree Shrew.
John
|