OK – I don’t blog much about human evolution stuff – but this article on a new theory in human evolution caught my eye and I don’t understand the reasoning behind it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130524104041.htm
Many theories exist on why humans evolved to walk on two legs with the savanna theory being the most accepted. While I am not a big believer in the savanna theory-this article makes even less sense to me. Quoting from the article;
“The broken, disrupted terrain offered benefits for hominins in terms of security and food, but it also proved a motivation to improve their locomotor skills by climbing, balancing, scrambling and moving swiftly over broken ground — types of movement encouraging a more upright gait.”
and
“The varied terrain may also have contributed to improved cognitive skills such as navigation and communication abilities, accounting for the continued evolution of our brains and social functions such as co-operation and team work.”
These statements seem totally without merit to me – aren’t most animals adept at scrambling quadrupeds? Wouldn’t there be other example of bipedal mountain creatures? Seems to me bipedalism would be a detriment to scrambling. And how does varied terrain improve communication abilities and teamwork? How did they come up with that leap of conjecture?
I am not a big believer in the savanna theory – but the conjecture behind this latest theory seems even less sound. I don’t understand why the Aquatic Ape Theory doesn’t get more traction in scientific circles – especially when I see other competing theories.