Re: Polar Bear Challenge for AAH opponents
Phillip Bigelow (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 14 Dec 1994 19:09:02 GMT
VINCENT@TRIUMF.CA (Pete Vincent) writes:
>` > 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?
>What might come closer, though, would be a succession of fossil types
>starting with an arboreal ape, and ending with an australopithecine,
>all found on an island. Not that it would be utterly conclusive,
>nor that I expect it to be a probable eventuation.
A succession of fossil types _might_ work, _provided_:
1) That you could find _structural_ evidence in the skeleton for aquatic
2) That you know what structural evidence of aquatic-ness in the skeleton
would look like if you found it.
All of the aquatic ape supporters on this dissussion group have consistently
stated that there may be no structural changes in the hominid skeleton due
to aquatic lifestyle. If so, no conclusion can be reached.
As has been stated _many_ times on this discussion group, finding hominid
fossils on a beach deposit or a river deposit tells us nothing about whether
the hominid actually lived by a beach or a river. It only tells us that was
where final deposition occurred.