Polar Bear Challenge for AAH opponents
Sir CPU (email@example.com)
6 Dec 1994 15:05:14 -0500
I would challenge the opponents of AAH could look at the skelaton of a
polar bear and compare it to the skelaton of a black bear and identify
which one is the "aquatic" animal.
Or, if you knew nothing about the the behaviors of each animal (the polar
bear and the black bear) would it be possible to identify one as being
aquatic and one as not, even one was given the complete speciman?
Opponents of AAH (if the theory applied to polar bears) could easily argue
that the webbed feet of a polar bear help it in snowy conditions and are
not necessarily an aquatic adaptation.
Or perhaps opponents should compare the anaconda (which spends a lot of
time in the water) to the python which doesn't.
The point is, how aquatic does an animal have to be to be considered
aquatic? And secondly, I think given these examples of organisms we know
are aquatic, that an organism can be aquatic WITH VERY FEW AQUATIC
ADAPTATIONS. And I would guess that humans display more aquatic
adaptations than the polar bear (any polar bear experts out there?)
Therfore, it is virtually impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
that humans have never been aquatic, because it really only takes a
relatively SMALL number of adaptations to be aquatic. In this case, the
burden of proof is really on the AAH opponents.