"Representative Trantis"  wrote in message
news:bocb6o$f44$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Don't know if this is appropriate for evolution, and should be posted to
> anthropology, but I will post it here anyway, and let the moderators
decide.
>
> Darwin proposed the idea of human evolution as a package, with
> bipedalism, technology and intelligence/a large brain, all came
> together. Today we know that isn't true. There is a rather large
> gap between bipedalism and the emergence of intelligence and
> technology, certainly enough for it not to be a package.
>
> Human females have a rather difficult time giving birth, that's a little
> bit of an understatement!  This is because we first evolved bipedal
> locomotion, requiring narrow hips.

I tried to find something on the 'net about the narrow-hip requirement, but
couldn't.  Could you briefly explain or point me to a source (... seems
counter-intuitive to me).
.
> We then developed bigger brains. This obviously requires a bigger
> head.  Humans however, having a narrow pelvis, can only stay in for
> nine months before they are only just large enough to still enable them
> to fit the head through the pelvis.  Consequently we come out much
> earlier than we should for our optimal brain development. This is one
> of the major theories as to why human babies are so helpless for
> their first year.
>
> It seems to me, that if you accept the general view that organisms can't
> evolve into anything less fit, in order to get fitter, they can't go down
> the slope of mount improbable to get further up in the long run as one
> famous Zoologist would put it. Then something stares you in the face.
>
> This something (I finally get to the point) is that it seems clear that
> bipedalism evolved first, and that the intelligence developed later,
> having to simply make do with what it has, ie, an inadequatly
> narrow pelvis for such a large brain/skull.

You've lost me... this seems like circular reasoning.  My reading in your
second paragraph is that "we first evolved bipedal locomotion" - I take it
you mean "first" in relation your next statement - "we then
delevoped bigger
brains", and from this you conclude that "it seems clear that bipedalism
evolved first, and that the intelligence developed later".  Clearly if the
former is correct the latter is also, as they are identical.  Your point
seems straightforward - I just seem to be missing how you got there.
Hopefully others responding will make this evident to me, but if not, please
try rephrasing your reasoning.

FWIW, I think there's some validity in your point, although it's not as
black and white (first bipedalism and then a larger brain) in my view,
mainly because brain size increased over some 7-9 million years (or, in
reality, far, far longer within ancestor species), while bipedalism was more
of a one-time shot.  My understanding, based on albeit limited knowledge of
the fossil record, is that bipedalism developed some 6 million years ago (I
may well be wrong here but hope I'm in the ball park), but as noted, brain
size had already been increasing and would continue to do so until about
130,000 years ago.  To me, that partly means your "emergence of
intelligence" statement is misleading - intelligence was not totally absent
5, 10 or 15 mya, and is almost certainly, IMHO, not a completed fact now -
intelligence should be placed on a curve as opposed to being absent or
present (inanimate objects, possibly fungi and vegetation, and certain
individuals I've met ;-) excepted).  Your entire phrase "emergence of
intelligence and technology" is even more misleading, in that basic
intelligence of Homo sapiens sapiens emerged with species emergence (~.13
mya), while technology has been developing for some 3 million years or more,
with several obvious spikes over that entire period.  This has accelerated
over the last ~10K years, especially so over the past ~300 years, and is
somewhat mind-boggling today.  But acceleration will likely increase far
beyond what we can now imagine, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out or
similar.  Hope that hasn't muddied the waters unacceptabley.

Finally, I'll question your taking only two points (biped. and
brain/intelligence) and comparing it any "package".  What about opposing
thumbs or forward-looking eyes, for example?

> For me this seems to stare you in the face. Why wasn't this picked
> up upon much earlier? (Or am I missing something about the specifics
> of the anatomical requirements of bipedalism in apes/humans? )

Best regards, Brett.
---
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 11/6/03 3:16:24 PM