Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bipedalism in apes: a plesiomorphic trait?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5931 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 1 of 14 (425191)
10-01-2007 5:19 AM


I recently came across a creationist espousing a book titled The Upright Ape.
I haven't actually read it, but the author, a spinal neurosurgeon, is suggesting that humans evolved from a bipedal ape. That is, quadrapedalism is apomorphic for modern apes like chimps and gorillas.
I was able to get two quotes from the book. One from the preface:
quote:
In part, this book details what I have discovered since the day in 1981 when David Pilbeam placed in my hands the problem of explaining a seemingly inexplicable 21-million-year-old fossil. This bone had the totally unique features found in humans, but it was from a creature that lived 15 million years too soon. There should not have been anything that looked like this until the human-chimp split 6 million years ago. I believe this conundrum can be explained, but Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as it now stands cannot provide everything that is required to explain it.
And one from the conclusion:
quote:
The first upright ape was also human. In the millions of years that followed, new species branched off and abandoned their upright posture to descend to what we now call "ape."
What do you think? Sound plausible in the least? Honestly, I think it violates everything I know about 'maximum liklihood' cladistics (i.e. not much). How could all apes bar one end up with the hunched over character....how could our spine be so screwy if it had evolved for that long...how could the other fossils be interpreted so wrongly?
Is the author a quack?
Human origins, please.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-01-2007 12:23 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 10-01-2007 12:31 PM Doddy has not replied
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2007 9:11 PM Doddy has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5931 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 9 of 14 (425792)
10-04-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by arachnophilia
10-03-2007 9:11 PM


arachnophilia writes:
what's even more truly bizarre is that i'm pretty sure that chimps are better at bipedal locomotion that we are. after all, they don't have pass giant-headed freak babies through their hips. we do.
Depends how you define 'better'. If you do mean being able to do it and still have little complications, then yes they are better. If you mean being able to do it efficiently and quickly (i.e. run), then we certainly outdo the chimps, even the thinner hips (but bigger heads) do cause some problems.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2007 9:11 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024