The explanation sounds rather contrived and, curiously, makes “evolution” sound like a theistic evolutionist’s God.
Ian Tattersall offers yet another myth about human bipedalism, in the sense of a tale that sounds plausible to the teller.
At Eurekalert: “It shocked us to learn that the trackways represent bipedal animals 3-4 meters long,” said team leader Professor Kyung Soo Kim, Chinju National University of Education.
No? Does such a perfect pop culture anthropology theory even have a right not to be true? Let alone be called by a rival anthropologist “bizarre” and “weird,” as in the article at The Scientist?
But the real villain is hands and opposable thumbs, right? They’re part and parcel of all the bad stuff humans do. The back pain is incidental.
They might be onto something. After all, they are looking at a restricted type of evidence that may be abundant enough to enable a reasonable decision about some fossils. A far cry from the hype we so often hear.
Carol Ward: It seems to be a behavior that was present in some of the earliest members of our branch of the family tree. It represented what was really the initial major adaptive change from any apelike creature that came before us.
Funny, if bipedalism originated in a global catastrophe, that it never occurred to any other primate to resolve the problem by becoming fully bipedal. But keep thinking. Resist groupthink.
How about this: Breasts and bipedalism both evolved to create a market for theories.