2 ms·
the empirical testing seems a bit like sophistry to me -- we can't really go back in time to test neanderthals, and while the anatomical difference seems dispos
by agolsme 1mo ago
the empirical testing seems a bit like sophistry to me -- we can't really go back in time to test neanderthals, and while the anatomical difference seems dispositive of adaptation, there is no evidence that indicates the adaptation is towards walking. It seems equally plausible to me that stronger quads in human males are not for walking long distances but for jumping....who's to say human culture didn't go through a period with a ton of parkour?
- sieabahlpark 1mo ago[dead]
- IAmBroom 1mo agoThere is a distinct lack of evidence to support your odd claim, while a very similar species (H. sapiens) has frequently used quads for long distance pursuit. Frequent jumping species, from frogs to lemurs, have distinctive cartilagenous attachment points, which H. neanderthalis bones lack. The more reasonable assumption (per Occam) is that H. neanderthalis was also a long-distance hunter.