On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Actually, my thread is about emergence. Thanks for playing.

How fortuitous! I wonder what caused those particular mutations?

Sorry, missed the part about abiogenesis. I thought your thread was about evolution. Maybe you can show me where you raised the issue of abiogenesis previously?

[YmirGF]

I'm not especially bright, Jay, but to my primitive thinking, I would assume that the emergence of bipedalism probably came about because of climate change and subsequent food gathering opportunities. If memory serves correctly, of course.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

The question, however, is not the relative advantages of bipedalism but, rather, how it came to be an option in the first place. To select for a trait it must first exist within the population. So, what caused the advent of bipedalism?

Since I realize that the answers here haven't really addressed Jay's original question directly, I'll try:

Generally, the advent of bipedalism was apparently caused by two factors:

- random mutation in near-bipedal organisms
- natural selection that led to the success of near-bipedal organisms

Or (and realizing that this is so vague as to be construed as evasive)...

- physiology that allowed for bipedal behaviour
- the adoption of bipedal behaviour

For specific cases, I'm not sure. It seems that bipedalism has arisen many times in the history of life. I don't know that the causes of each specific case are known in detail, but my instinct is that there is probably no one single cause at the root of all of them.

[Storm]

Is or was any other animal exclusively bipedal, or is this trait unique to humans?

[Autodidact]

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Storm

Is or was any other animal exclusively bipedal, or is this trait unique to humans?

Exclusively bipedal? I can think of a few, like ostriches.

There are many species that are predominantly bipedal: kangaroos & wallabies, kangaroo mice (not related to the kangaroo, obviously), springhares, and I believe some lizards.

On top of this, there are many that are occasionally bipedal.

[painted wolf]

no lizard is predominantly bipedal...not today at any rate. (a few extinct lineages toyed with it, even crocs.)
A few can run for short distances on hind legs, but thats about it.

All birds are bipedal.

Bipedalism arose twice in apes, once in hominids.
Kangaroos, wallabies and kangaroo mice are actually only bipedal while traveling at high speed. Otherwise they stay on four feet to feed.

So why did humans and not chimps develop this way?
Ultimately as a question of philosophy its a lot harder to answer than scientifically.

wa:do

[Storm]

Well, that question was major brain fart. Sorry, guys.

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Well if you can't define it, how can you talk about it? Jayhawker says that God = no different from random. Yell at him if you don't like it.

Sure you can.

But that is all beside the point. You're using your knowledge (specifically, your experiences with natural processes) and calling a set of results (or distribution) that is commonplace to be defined as random chance. You used the analogy of flipping a coin, for example. So, my question is this: why do you say that random chance isn't caused by God? What evidence is there for that? The only point to be made here is that it's an endless cycle. If you believe you haven't perceived God, then you can only conclude that your perception might be lacking and not necessarily his existence or his possibly very active role in nature.