Re: Alternating gait
From: Paul Crowley (slkwuoiutiuytciuyik_at_slkjlskjoioue.com)
Date: 11/08/04
- Next message: Marc Verhaegen: "preadaptations to speech"
- Previous message: Lee Olsen: "Re: Importance of Flores Overstated?"
- In reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Next in thread: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Reply: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Reply: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 17:27:12 -0000
"Algis Kuliukas" <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote in message
news:77a70442.0411070159.490b49dd@posting.google.com...
> What needs accounting for is how did this efficient status arise, as
> it undoubtedly is the result of quite specific anatomical features. It
> is, to me, inconceivable that the earliest bipeds - with a very
> different anatomy - could have been anywhere near as efficient as we
> are. It's a kind of catch 22. The traits for bipedal efficiency
> clearly did evolve and yet the earliest manifestations of bipedalism
> could not have been efficient at all, quite the contrary, probably.
>
> How do we solve this riddle? We need a substrate/scenario where the
> earliest form of bipedalism would have been at least as efficient as
> any quadrupedal alternative
NO, we don't. (Or not unless you have a
very much wider definition of 'efficiency'
than most would accept.) What we need
are some SELECTIVE forces that more
than compensate for (a) the loss of
regular efficiency, (b) the loss of speed
in escaping predators, and (c) all the
other enormous changes that new life-
style would entail.
> and, ideally, also provide some added
> selective boost to overcome this obvious initial rubicon.
The first thing to accept is that the loss
of speed (in escaping predators) would
be an enormous handicap -- so we need
something of gigantic proportions that
more than compensated for it. 'Efficiency'
will be such a minor element in the
equation that it is best disregarded.
That you think it's the major factor
shows only that you have not a clue
as to the question.
> The most
> plausible, evidence-based candidate is clearly shallow (waist deep)
> water.
Hey -- what's 'waist-deep' to you, will
not be waist deep to your wife or your
children. But, so what -- I hear you
saying -- your conception of early
hominids is strictly as adult males.
Early hominids never had any females,
nor any children or nor infants. OR, IF
they did (and you might allow a few
from time to time) they were of no
significance. No one in PA ever thinks
about them, so why should you?
> In shallow water apes are almost certainly more efficient
> moving bipedally as they would be moving quadrupedally plus, as an
> added bonus, you get the rather handy 'free gift' that bipedalism in
> waist deep water allows you to breathe easily, with no worries, as you
> move.
>
> Of course shallow water is not all waist deep.
Drivel . . drivel . . . drivel . . and more
sexist drivel.
No matter how many times you are told
you cannot get the sexist 19th-century
(and standard-PA) thinking out of your
head.
Paul.
- Next message: Marc Verhaegen: "preadaptations to speech"
- Previous message: Lee Olsen: "Re: Importance of Flores Overstated?"
- In reply to: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Next in thread: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Reply: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Reply: Algis Kuliukas: "Re: Alternating gait"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
