"Representative Trantis"  wrote in message
news:bl895s$3a5$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. 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.
>
> 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? )

I don't get the point in these kind of arguments. At each of
the stages you mention, didn't the _overall_ fitness of homo
Sap. increase? We probably wouldn't be here if it didn't,
no? Maybe, as an analytical chemist, I just don't see what
the _quantitative_
definition of fitness is, if there is one, outside of
species survival, that is.   :)            ...tonyC
---
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 9/29/03 8:30:35 PM