"Origin of hominid bipedalism" Nature 325:305-6

Sinclair cs (1) believe that human BPism arose in scavenging hominid ancestors that had to carry their children while following migrating savanna ungulates, but this seems highly improbable.
There was no empty niche of migrating scavengers to be occupied by hominid ancestors. Not only vultures, but also canid, felid & hyaenid carnivores were much better preadapted for such a niche. They possessed sharp beaks or long canine teeth, and did not
need to carry stones for cutting carcasses. Moreover, the BP way of locomotion – whether fast or slow – is inefficient & costly (2,3).
Another argument against the migrating hypothesis in particular & the savannah theory of human evolution in general is that it is highly unlikely that hominid ancestors ever lived in the savannas. Man is the opposite of a savanna inhabitant. Humans lack
sun-reflecting fur (4), but have thermo-insulative subcutaneous fat layers, which are never seen in savanna mammals. We have a water- & sodium-wasting cooling system of abundant sweat glands, totally unfit for a dry environment (5). Our maximal urine
concentration is much too low for a savanna-dwelling mammal (6). We need much more water than other primates, and have to drink more often than savanna inhabitants, yet we cannot drink large quantities at a time (7-8). The fossils of our hominid
ancestors or relatives are always found in water-rich environments.
It is difficult to understand why most anthropologists keep believing in the savanna theory (because it goes back to Darwin?), or why so many anthropologists keep trying to seek the most improbable reasons for BPism, while they should know there are much
better explanations (9-11).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)