Re: AAT reply from Elaine Morgan
Wed, 28 Dec 1994 13:00:51 EST
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Phil
>In article <1994Dec27.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>Troy Kelley <email@example.com> wrote:
>>So, following this logic, hunting dogs, lions, cheetahs, leapards,
>>hyenas, and a host of other carnavoirs should give birth to plumb babies
>>because they all have to follow game animals around on the savannah for
>>food. This is not the case. The fat deposits of these animals is not
>>similar to the fat deposits in man. I doubt if any of the animals I
>>listed, as newborns, could float in water the way a human baby can.
>Troy, listen very carefully:
>Lamarch = OUT
>Darwin = IN
Really, Professor Nicholls, that's a cheap shot.And BTW, I thought
Lamarck's name was spelled with a k, not an h.
>It's been that way for a very long time now. Organisms are a product
>of environment AND geneology. Therefore the "why don't . . ." questions
>that AAH love to ask are meaningless except as a display of the
>"pop-science" level of there understanding of evolution.
Troy didn't claim that fat deposits would be acquired and passed on to
descendants in a Lamarckian manner. The point is that if baby lions,
dogs, etc., were much more likely to survive lean times by being born
fat, and if that advantage outweighed the costs of being born fat,
then they would be born fat, like human babies. The occasional mutant
lion cub born with extra adipose tissue would be more likely to pass
on his genes, and so on.
This argument for the aquatic origin of human subcutaneous fat may
be flawed -- perhaps savannah hominids needed fat layers morethan
lions, dogs, cheetahs, etc. because they had a different diet and
different techniques for obtaining food -- but you should argue
against the hypothesis without being needlessly sarcastic to the
person who suggests it.
Standard disclaimers apply.