Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
From: Nick Maclaren (nmm1_at_cus.cam.ac.uk)
Date: 08/04/04
- Next message: m3d: "Re: Chimpanzee an Man LCA, a banana?"
- Previous message: Mark: "Re: Ain't It Time to Kiss Evolution Goodbye?"
- Maybe in reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Bipedalism in different substrates"
- Next in thread: Paul Crowley: "Re: Bipedalism in different substrates"
- Reply: Paul Crowley: "Re: Bipedalism in different substrates"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Aug 2004 13:01:06 GMT
In article <kLKPc.24252$Z14.7334@news.indigo.ie>,
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> writes:
|>
|> It is a serious issue -- and it's one that the
|> professionals routinely dodge. IF such
|> territory could have been occupied by early
|> hominids, then it could have been better
|> occupied by later hominids, and there
|> should have been a population of around
|> a billion in Africa for the last few million
|> years. But there wasn't. There were vast
|> regions of "open forest [and] of areas
|> featuring mosaics of forest, brushland
|> and grassland" -- with nary a hominid
|> within a few hundred miles.
That is true - and not just in Africa. The
description applies to large chunks of Europe and
Asia, which was easily accessible from Africa. And
to the Americas, which weren't.
|> Excluding deserts and swamps, there are
|> two main kinds of habitat: (a) forests --
|> occupied by chimps; and (b) open areas
|> with grass (often with plenty of trees),
|> occupied by herbivores and large
|> predators.
That is true, but why are you excluding deserts and
swamps? The former are currently occupied by similar
(but more specialised) species to the savanna and
the latter by a wide range of species (not currently
including any non-human hominids, and world-wide not
generally including primates).
|> Where do hominids fit in? They are
|> descended from chimps, and still eat
|> 'chimp food'. So their habitat has clearly
|> remained essentially the same. AAT
|> people ignore that and invent all manner
|> of weird 'transitional' habitats. They are,
|> in fact, following an ancient pattern set
|> by standard PA, which has also long
|> ignored that basic fact. Its 'transitional
|> habitat' used to be the open savanna,
|> and most PA types retain a hankering
|> for a 'meat-eating' hominid competing
|> with lions, hyenas and hunting dogs.
Yes, but that doesn't explain why we developed the
most unusual characteristic of bipedality. All of
chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas have stayed in the
forest, and are structurally fairly similar. How
AND WHY did we diverge?
We know that we became a savanna hunter later, but
almost certainly after we had developed efficient and
fast bipedality. So it doesn't help with how we did
that.
|> It's the central issue in PA, and
|> pretending that there is a satisfactory
|> (or even clear) answer is not the way
|> to find a solution.
Correct. Some forms of the AAT are plausible
speculations, but are no more than that until and
unless there is confirming evidence. Some of the
behavioural hypotheses are also plausible speculations,
and the same remark applies. The answer could well
be a compound one, too. We don't know.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
- Next message: m3d: "Re: Chimpanzee an Man LCA, a banana?"
- Previous message: Mark: "Re: Ain't It Time to Kiss Evolution Goodbye?"
- Maybe in reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Bipedalism in different substrates"
- Next in thread: Paul Crowley: "Re: Bipedalism in different substrates"
- Reply: Paul Crowley: "Re: Bipedalism in different substrates"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|