Re: Clark's dilemma

Claudius Denk wrote:

What, specifically, are you referring to? You mentioned the
word, "comparison." What, exactly, was compared and how did you
come to the absurd conclusion that A'pith would have been poorly
adapted to trees?

IF Apiths had been sleeping in trees (as
well as feeding off them, etc.,)

Obviously they were.

Obviously, they weren't.

they would
have been in direct competition with chimps.

This is your lunacy. Apith evolved from chimps.
No such competition ever took place.

Is this an ecological rule you've invented?
A daughter species can never be in competition
with its parent species? They didn't eat the
same food? Wolves don't compete with
coyotes or jackals? Crows don't compete
with magpies?

The latter can cope with predators,
particularly leopards at night, with their
special adaptations for sleeping in trees:
four prehensile limbs, allowing infants to
cling to mothers and mothers to cling to
smaller branches, allowing them to go high
and avoid leopards.

You didn't answer my question. You just repeated the same
absurd conclusion. You said you made a comparison and came to
the conclusion that A'pith were incapable of using the same
methods chimps use to evade predation. What did you compare?
Be specific. And stop repeating the same absurd conclusion.

I have been specific and explained all the
relevant facts.

Apiths did not have those adaptations

What adaptations? Be specific you vague nitwit.

Apiths did not have four prehensile limbs.
That difference in morphology was huge,
and enabled entirely different life-styles,
and methods of competing with nocturnal
predators.

and
would not have been able to cope with
nocturnal leopard attacks.

Evidence? References? And keep in mind the rest of us don't
have access to your imagination.

We know the challenges faced by chimps from
leopards. We can see that hominids could not
respond in the same way.

and that, in switching to bipedalism,
they had lost the abilities:
(a) to sprint fast to trees, and

Delusional.

Which would win a 50-yard dash:
(A) a chimp mother with a two-year-old
infant, or (B) a hominid mother with a
two-year-old infant?

Who cares. What's your point?

Apith populations would have been much
slower in running for trees.

(b) to easily carry their young and infants while
trying to run and climb.

Let me get this straight. Paul, you're saying that a bipedal
hominid would be *less* capable of carrying infants?

Have you seen (e.g. on TV) chimp mothers,
with young infants climbing trees?
Have you seen (e.g. on TV) HUMAN mothers,
with young infants climbing trees?

So, uh . . . er . . . uh. Are you seriously trying to tell us
that having two hands tree would make it *more* difficult to
carry an infant?

Yes. Chimps don't have to use their hands
AT ALL to carry infants. They normally
have ALL FOUR limbs free to run and climb.
So they can run much faster and climb much
better than hominids.

Paul, when you make statements like this how
do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

How can it be more obvious? Surely you have
seen a chimp mother with an infant?

Which (taken as a team) was better at it?
Or, if you have strangely missed seeing one
or both, which would you expect to be better
at it?

Uh, I'd expect A'pith to be better at it since they have two hands
free when moving whereas chimps are (usually) quadrupedal. Do you
have any more perfectly obvious questions?

You clearly have never seen a chimp mother
with an infant. Do you really think the
chimp mother uses her hands to carry it?


Paul

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... trees, exactly as chimps do. ... same amount of time on the ground as chimps. ... became super-duper intelligent, the infants ... in trees when their infants' brains grew. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... adapted to trees? ... Apith evolved from chimps. ... cling to mothers and mothers to cling to ... hominid would be *less* capable of carrying infants? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... brain will not grow as large as a human's. ... As infants they were ... trees, exactly as chimps do. ... same amount of time on the ground as chimps. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >humans built nightly nests in trees. ... And chimps and gorillas are ... which reinforces either bipedalism or quadrupedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >>humans built nightly nests in trees. ... And chimps and gorillas are ... > which reinforces either bipedalism or quadrupedalism. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading