Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?
From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Updated AAH Definition"
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- In reply to: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Next in thread: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Nov 2004 10:49:22 -0800
"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote
> > As far as the physiologists can tell, ANY AND ALL
> > improvements for bipedality would NECESSARILY have
> > reduced brachiating and quadrupedal efficiency.
>
> So swinging from a tree by your arms is harmed by
> walking on your hind legs? Did you ever look at a
> gibbon? They are the best at brachiating and on the
> ground they are bipids.
Nevertheless, it's only reasonable to assume that
specialization for ground walking/running would
reduce specialization for brachiation. Moreover,
the increased size and weight of legs and torso
necessary to make an effective, vertically balanced,
bipedal ape would be a detriment to their ability to
swing through the trees by their arms.
Jim
- Next message: Paul Crowley: "Re: Updated AAH Definition"
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- In reply to: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Next in thread: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]