Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?
From: Nick Maclaren (nmm1_at_cus.cam.ac.uk)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Previous message: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Fifty-thousand friggin' years?"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Next in thread: pete: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: pete: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: firstjois: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Nov 2004 09:09:41 GMT
In article <ac6a5059.0411230049.1526d08f@posting.google.com>,
Jim McGinn <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I think you might be missing Deowll's point. Unless
>I'm misinterpreting him, I think he's making a very
>good point that if we consider these gibbons to be
>representative of apes in general that are in the
>processes of transitioning to being more ground-
>dwelling that it would appear, from this evidence,
>that there was no major morphological or functional
>obstacle to the adoption (adaptation) of bipedalism.
And I am pointing out that the evidence is that they are NOT
doing so! It isn't clear that they are still becoming more
arboreal and brachiating, but it is clear that has been their
general evolution for the past few million years, and there is
no evidence that the are becoming more terrestrial and bipedal.
>Undoubtedly. Which is consistent with them assuming
>a terrestrial (but stationary) lifestyle. And which
>is completely inconsistent (longer and heavier legs
>[your words]) with a shift to aquaticism. Surely you
>don't dispute this, do you?
While that is consistent with adopting a stationary lifestyle,
that leads to a serious problem with leopard predation. The
more difficulty an outlying and vulnerable animal has in reaching
the group, the more likely it is to be raided by a leopard.
Leopards will not attach large, alert groups of chimpanzees or
other animals capable of defending themselves, but will attack
isolated and unwary ones.
And longer and heaver legs is incompatible with swimming, but
not wading.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
- Next message: Jim McGinn: "Re: AFAICT We are now down to one conversation on SAP - Mosaic Theory"
- Previous message: Nick Maclaren: "Re: Fifty-thousand friggin' years?"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Next in thread: pete: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: pete: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: firstjois: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Reply: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|