[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: origin of bipedality (was Re: book reviews, parsimony and some loose ends)



In a message dated 96-10-25 19:33:42 EDT, mrowe@indiana.edu (Mickey P. Rowe)
writes:

>  Or to use your own techniques (heck I'll use mostly your own words):
> 
> If bipedality were so easily evolved, and for such seemingly trivial
> reasons, then why aren't more "acronomic" animals bipedal? 

Au contraire; these are mostly your words. I never said bipedality was easily
evolved, or for trivial reasons.

[I didn't write those words, George.  You wrote them when you were
 making up a straw man of what I'd previously written.  That was one
 of your "techniques" to which I referred in the quoted section above.
 Good to see that you didn't particularly like it either.  Maybe that
 will help you understand why I've been complaining about the way you
 argue.  Now move along, please. -- MR]
 
According to BCF, it required a lengthy stretch of arboreality to
render the forelimbs useless for portal locomotion.  And--all large
bipedal mammals (kangaroos, humans) are related closely enough to
arboreal mammals (tree kangaroos, apes) that their descent from
arboreal forms is a strong possibility.