Re: Polar Bear Challenge for AAH opponents
Phillip Bigelow (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 13 Dec 1994 21:14:45 GMT
>Well, I can suggest a find that would be pretty compelling evidence
>for the AAH. Suppose that an australopithecus afarensis or similar
>skeleton is found in the Danakil Alps, and dated to the period when
>those mountains were an island or islands, a period for which there's
>a gap in the hominid fossil record. If the skeleton is found in
>what used to be the seashore, that's icing on the cake.
>AAH opponents: Would you accept that as strong evidence for the AAH?
>If not, why not?
It will tell us nothing about the validity of the Aquatic Ape Theory. You
will know that the range of hominids is extended into the region of the
Danakil region, and that is about all you will know. In order to get _real_
evidence to support your theory, you must have some idea of what
_structural_ characteristics to look for that indicates aquatic-ness in
these hominids. Your side still hasn't told us what structural
characteristics to expect. It appears that even the supporters of the
theory don't know what specifically, to look at in the skeleton to find
their much-needed evidence. Maybe that is why they refuse to tell us.
If hominids are found at Danakil, it will be a wonderful addition to our
knowledge of our ancestors. But those fossils had better show skeletal
adaptations to an aquatic lifestyle, or it provides no evidence at all for
the AAT. Sorry :)