Re: AAT and swimming
Pat Dooley (email@example.com)
10 Dec 1994 00:10:09 -0500
In article <D0F403.firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com writes:
> You're entitled to your own opinion, which I'm willing to respect,
>any conjecture regarding australopithecine noses (which are not so pure
>considering that they are carefully based on the preserved portions of
>face in regards not only to the shapes of the noses of modern simians and
>humans, but obvious points of muscle and cartilage attachment, the shapes
>and angles of the faces and a whole host of other data) are not my own
>but those far more experienced at fossil reconstruction than I ever will
>If you care to debate with them, you are free to do so, but taking cheap
>shots at me, or any other courteous member of this group isn't going to
>credibility to your arguments. Respond politely, and I promise to do the
Heres what I said:
>>Noses don't fossilise and the AAH people haven't been doing the
>>Who's to say what Australopithecine noses looked like? Any comment on
>>when the developed, in the absence of any theory of evidence, is pure
>>on Jon's part.
Well now, I am surprised to be accused of taking cheap shots. My, we live
sensitive age. Must be that "pure conjecture" part. I'll withdraw the
Noses are funny appendages when you think about it. What's really strange
is that you can't actually move them very much by muscular action. A
little nostril flaring perhaps and that's it. Things that don't move don't
have much muscle to move them. Think about the modern variation in noses.
Asian and African noses
compared to Middle Eastern noses, for example. I don't think you could
skeletal evidence for that variation. The only thing they still have in
downward pointing nostrils.
So, it is going to be REAL hard to reconstruct noses based on skeletal and
muscle attacment analysis. Bit like hairlessness, breasts and similar
Pat D taking a more expensive shot - I've done my ten free hours on AOL.