Re: AAT and the bones
Ralph L Holloway (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 9 Aug 1995 11:31:50 -0400
On Tue, 8 Aug 1995, Elaine Morgan wrote:
> I predict that you will find nothing more surprising in the skeleton of
> ramidus than you found on the dark side of the moon. His fingers will
> be like Lucy's. Pelvis and feet will be much more hominid-like than
> ape-like. They may be slightly less adapted for bipedalism but not
> very much. Whatever was happening there had been happening for a long
> time; it did not begin with the opening out of the forests.
> Okay? Place your bets.
Perhaps I have misread Elaine's post here, but it essentially means to me
that there can be no distinguishing between aquatic adaptations and those
associated with bipedalism that also retain arboreal adaptations such as
curved phalanges and an opposable hallux. In short, all bets are off when
it comes to the hard skeletal evidence since Elaine now claims that we
must not expect any outward skletal adaptations that we have mistakenly
associated with all of the hypotheses regarding convergent evolution and
adaptations to an aquatic existence that her hypothesis has been
stressing.This leaves us then with only the soft-tissue-physiological
arguments that will never be settled with fossil evidence. Sounds to me
like a position that one takes when backed into a corner, i.e., there is
no evidence to disprove my hypothesis because the evidence can be as
equivocal as I want it to be...Place our bets? Impossible to do so now,
if you are really claiming that there will be no aquatic-like skeletal
adaptations to be found in hominoid/hominid evolution that are
distinguishable from those explained by standard hypotheses of developing
to a gradual dissication and loss of primary forest environments, and an
expanding mixed savannah riverine gallery forest environment.
Have I misread you?