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


Jonathan R. Wagner wrote:
>         Please think about this for just a minute.  If the claw was
> developed for climbing, and then exapted for hunting, of course it would be
> "overkill" (pardon the pun) for climbing.  Too often we insist that we must
> be able to draw a clear and direct link between an adaptation, its function,
> and its form.

Generally, drawing a link between an adaptation and its function is a
pretty good idea.  Your comment was exactly my point.  I said that
arboreality was not the prime reason for the big claw.  Their regular
claws would work, they didn't need a special claw.  If the claw became
secondarily adapted for hunting, then it is no longer a specific
adaption for arboreality which was the point I was trying to make.  The
claw was not an adaptaion for climbing as seemed to be the idea
expressed in the post to which I was replying, it was a hunting tool.

>         Do you think your feet evolved for climbing?  Most people cannot
> hang by their feet. Their feet must have evolved for walking on flat ground,
> not climbing.  I wonder if monkeys evolved from humans, and adapted our
> short stubby toes into long prehensile ones for climbing.

Huh?  No, I don't think our feet were evolved for climbing.  This is
pretty obvious.  Humans are not arboreal.  We can use our feet for
climbing but we aren't very good at it.  So, what was your point?  As
far as I know, no one has seriously considered monkeys as branching off
from ground dwelling hominids.

Joe Daniel