From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:52:05 -0600
Archived: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:23:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Binary/Convergent Evolution


>From: Stuart Miller <stuart.4.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:02:00 +0100
>Subject: Re: Binary/Convergent Evolution

>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:21:01 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Binary/Convergent Evolution

<snip>

>This may be a 'What came first; chicken or egg' situation but
>the reason why our ancestors became bipedal is because their
>bodies evolved differently to other primates. Walking upright
>simply became a more comfortable means of getting about.

>Whether this happened because of a change in their behviour
>which necessitated an evolutinary shift or whether the change
>occurred and the behaviour adapted, I couldn't say.

>You can find a more detailed explantion here but, unless its of
>personal interest, you'll neeed to set aside the ID element of
>it:

>"If upright walking is so energetically favorable, why do apes
>still 'knuckle-walk'?"

>http://tinyurl.com/2syvzm


Thanks for the link Stuart. While not a creationist sympathizer,
I found this article profoundly circular and unpersuasive. It
ultimately reaches the vacuous conclusion that bipedalism is not
suited for say, chimpanzees, because their bodies are adapted
primarily for quadrapedal knuckle-walking. Well, thanks
professor, that clears it up!

The question is _why_ did our common ancestor diverge into
bipedal and non-bipedal forms? If the wide-open savannah confers
some advantage to bipedal animals, or conversely, selects
against quadrapeds, one might well wonder why we do not see
additional bipedal forms in that environment.

I do not question that some selection mechanism led to our
bipedal form, but simply attributing it to 'adaptation to the
savannah' is not convincing at all.


Mike





Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/