I still just read this incredible nonsense in sci.anthropology.paleo:
"We moved out onto the open plains, where full bipedalism was favoured because it enabled us to see both predator and prey from far away. Being fully bipedal made it possible to become fast runners, so we developed narrow feet (like an ostrich) - imagine trying to run fast with wide flat feet. Then we lost most of our body hair (or rather, the individual hairs became finer) to help us keep cool while chasing down prey. Losing muscle strength also meant losing bulk, which also enabled us to run faster. Our method of hunting was to chase the prey until it became exhausted, so our really big muscles are in the thighs and buttocks."
How idiotic is this?? Stupid stupid stupid!

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> I still just read this incredible nonsense in sci.anthropology.paleo:

> "We moved out onto the open plains, where full bipedalism was favoured because it
> enabled us to see both predator and prey from far away. Being fully bipedal made it
> possible to become fast runners, so we

They have the tail wagging the dog.

Humans may have reached the savanna, and everywhere else, but it was
no environment for humans to evolve in.

For one thing, looking at Chimps, the savanna supports a smaller population
density than does the forest. So they're claiming that a REDUCED population,
a SMALLER gene pool resulted in evolving something they pretend looked like
a Chimp into modern man.

Now the aquatic environment, exploiting the sea can actually support a higher
population density than the forest! AND it explains things like dispersal, AND
it explains how we could have evolved such a need for DHA when there isn't
any in the forest or on the savanna...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024