"Red Dragon"  wrote in message
news:...
> >
> > A monsoon climate, which has seasonal rains and seasonal dryness, is
> > different from the climate in Ape habitat which is seasonless and it
> > rains all year round.
> >
> >   Following this, the dessication theory had
> > > been dropped and  search is on for some other possible explanation.
> >
> > You're mixed up.  Earlier theory did assume a dry TREELESS habitat
> > like we currently find in East Africa.  We now realize that the
> > climate was not quite as dry as it is currently.  But, more
> > importantly, we now realize that A'pith weren't in treeless habitat
> > but at the treed patches in a habitat that was mostly treeless.  The
> > factor that dictates this is a monsoon climate.  Think of the climate
> > in India: lots of rain at one part of the year and little or no rain
> > for the rest of the year.  This dictates the patchiness of the
> > remaining forest.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> 
> Your monsoon theory may be right,

It's completely supported by the paleoclimatic evidence.  Think about
it.  What are the odds that this climate would just happen to emerge
at the right place and time (about 8mya) as our ancestors emerged. 
Check out this link:

http://tinyurl.com/22de3


  but what is important is that whether it
> be monsoon climate or  dessication climate,  it affected both the dwellings
> of the Australopithecus and the other primates simultaneously.   The effect
> somehow caused  the Australopithecus to be bipedal from being of 4 footed,
> so as to stand a better chance to survive in a hostile savannah type
> environment.

The shift to bipedalism was, primarily, a rock-throwing,
stick-wielding adaptation.

> Climatic changes  propelled  Australopithecus into bipedalism,  but in no
> way  was it related to the  evolution from it to Homo.

You lost me here.  Rock-throwing, stick-wielding provides the perfect
evolutionary uprampt to more sophisticated tool/weapons usage.

  Logically speaking,
> being a  bipedal  primate grasping a weapon in its flexible hand can be
> considered to possess sufficient means to survive in the hostile environment
> of the Savannah.

No, they'd be dead meat on a treeless savanna.  A'pith weapons were
only effective in large groups and only to defend territory (against
inmigrating food competitors).

  It was then a stable entity,  just like the lion, the
> cheetah. and the crocodile etc.   No problem  was faced with  obtaining food
> and producing offsprings.

You lost me here.  

> 
> But somehow,  Australopithecus continued to evolve into Homo with increasing
> brain size, consequently acquiring greater intelligence.
> What is to dfferentiate between  Australopithecus and Homo?  Where do we
> draw the line?  It is the brain size.  The same primate is called Homo the
> moment its brain size exceeded 700 cc.
> 
> An interesting thought is that when the Monsoon climate came to India,  what
> effect did it had on the primates there?  I dont think any primate there
> became bipedal.

I don't know.  But humans do live there.  

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/5/04 3:32:15 PM