Re: Infant carrying in apes and hominins

"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:SpF2j.4170$AR7.3520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Contrary to popularistic hunter-gatherer notions hominids are and have always maintained a
situated (non-mobile) communal lifestyle. So carrying of infants is not much of a factor at
all.

Ridiculous. Mothers have to forage -- for
themselves as well as their infants, other
relatives, and (in the case of extant hominids)
their males. Hominid females CANNOT forage
with any degree of efficiency while carrying
an infant.

So how did the first hominid females adopt
bipedalism?

Typical Crowley nonsense.

It's question. Naturally you duck it.

Your objection makes no sense in the context of a stationary
communal existence, as indicated in my hypothesis.

Members of stationary communities have to
feed themselves. That means getting up in
the morning, looking after the baby and any
other young and finding food. A chimp
mother can go out easily with her infant
attached, and forage as easily (or almost as
easily) as a female without an infant.

BUT if she were to go bipedal, then she have
immense difficulty looking after the infant
and collecting food at the same time.

TRY to deal with the question. WHY should
she go bipedal?

Answer this question you evasive twit: isn't it true that your objection requires them to
travel long distances on a regular basis? It's a simple question. Why not provide a simple
answer.

Certainly not. These very early hominids
moved the minimum possible distance
from their home base. They were not
built for locomotion.


Paul.


.