Re: Clark's dilemma

On Nov 8, 1:03 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

You didn't "compare" anything you dimwit. If you are not actually
comparing anything then don't use the word.

Don't you think you should retract your claim to have made a
comparison?

Apiths did not have those adaptations

What adaptations?  Be specific you vague nitwit.

Apiths did not have four prehensile limbs.

Possibly. But why does this matter. Afterall it doesn't require four
prehensile limbs to climb trees, right? (Answer the question you
evasive twit.)

That difference in morphology was huge,
and enabled entirely different life-styles,
and methods of competing with nocturnal
predators.

Trying to change the subject, aren't you, you evasive jackass.

If you are not going to defend your lunatical assertion that A'pith
would have been poorly adapted to trees then don't you think you
should make a retraction?

Go ahead, Paul. Make the retraction.

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.

Firstly you'd have to establish that there were any leopards in this
biota. leopards tend to be associated with jungle habitat. And you
have to flesh out what you mean by the phrase, "hominids couldn't
respond the same way." Then you need to establish that they also
couldn't be effective responding in a different way. You haven't done
this. (And I predict you never will.)



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.

I don't know. Possibly. But you've yet to establish why this is
significant. And then there's the fact that Apith would be better
able to use weapons and to fight enforce.


(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.  

Absurd.

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.

This is a rather obvious instance of you trying to bend the facts to
fit your precocieved notions.


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

How can it be more obvious?  

Keep in mind that the rest of us don't have access to your
imagination.

Surely you have
seen a chimp mother with an infant?

Uh, yeah, so?

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?

Do you really think people are so dumb as to believe that early
hominids wouldn't have used their hands to carry an infant?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Sleeping on the ground
    ... in the trees to minimise the risk of predation. ... stopped sleeping in trees. ... Defecation by an infant at ... Females may have wielded them in action ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Clarks dilemma
    ... nor her infant had FOUR prehensile limbs? ... She gives birth to an infant which has the physical development ... trees, exactly as chimps do. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal adaptation
    ... sleeping in trees. ... And that's why hominids never needed ... tool usage does not cause selection of human intelligence/consciousness. ... is a reduced ability to defend against predators. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Bipedal adaptation
    ... You have Apiths sleeping in trees, ... Tools are useful to chimps NOW. ... Contrived nonsense. ... AT SOME POINT, you dope, hominids ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Apith Predatory Realities: not like those of extant chimps (Repost from 08/2003)
    ... predators -- in that they will not suffer ... You need to let the evidence be your ... Don't all hypotheses assume hominids survived? ... that era would have been able to climb high in trees to ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading