Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?
From: deowll (deowll_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/24/04
- Next message: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Previous message: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Next in thread: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:08:05 -0600
"Jim McGinn" <jimmcginn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac6a5059.0411221049.20e97a6e@posting.google.com...
> "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.
Running fast, yes. Walking, no. There is one in the fossil record from South
Africa.
>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.
>
Even allowing that your poor choice of words keeps saying that the best tree
swinger (gibbon) is a poor tree swinger the South African Apiths hung around
for a few million years at least so apparently the answer is NO! Heck even
habilis is enough evidence to suggest no!
Long legs only show up in some robust apiths and erectus! If you are are
trying to say that having long legs for running would mess you up as swinger
I suppose so but at the same time the legs got longer the arms seem to have
gotten shorter which suggests they weren't spending much time in the trees
but that was millions of years after they became bipids. In our line this
happened mainly between habilis and erectus. Anything you're trying to say
had better fit into that.
> Jim
- Next message: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Previous message: deowll: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- In reply to: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Next in thread: Jim McGinn: "Re: Are the "mosaic theories" completely vaccuous?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|