Joined: Dec. 2006
|The authors recognise that the morphology and action they are studying is unusual among cursors, and this leads them to make a design inference. The hypothesis is that there are physiological reasons for the design of the human foot (rather than the structure being a spandrel and a witness to evolutionary tinkering).|
Well, if you compare the above quote with the introduction it is readily apparent that Tyler is being disingenuous. This is from the introduction:
|The morphology and action of the human foot with— during walking—a grounded ‘heel’ behind a relatively distal ankle joint loaded early in stance, and ‘toes’ pushing off at the end of stance (i.e. a the heel–sole–toe stance or ‘plantigrade’ foot) is very unusual outside the hominoidea (apes including humans) [1–4]. It is absent in the majority of cursors, whether bipedal (e.g. ostrich, emu, etc.) or quadrupedal.|
So, Tyler is saying that the human foot is different from bipedal cursors like ostriches and quadrupedal cursors like cheetahs, and similar to the plantigrade foot seen in apes, therefore design.
Church burning ebola boy
FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.
PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.