Re: Fossil Evidence for AAT

WIlliam C. Wilson (
4 Jan 1995 02:24:10 GMT

> The most obvious evidence that I can think of that would support, if true,
> AAT would be a frequent occurance of Hominid fossils in aquatic sedimentation
> layers. Aquatic environments often ideal for fossil preservation. And
> certainly drownings or aquatic predatory attacks (exp. crocodiles) would be a
> common. No matter how good they swam, the sick or injured would occationally
> drown. I don't recall ever hearing of a hominid fossil found in aquatic
> silt sediments. Does anyone know different?
> Ed Ruden

Actually, the presence of hominid fossils in aquatic or semi-aquatic
enviornments really isn't good evidence either way. As you say these
locals are the ones most likely to preserve fossils in the first
place. They also are locations that most animals terrestrial and aquatic
must frequent for different reasons. The presence of hominid or proto-homind
fossils in clearly marine or deep water-far shore facies might be good evidence,
especially if the fossils showed some clear skeletal modifications
to an aquatic enviornment. What seems to be most needed are fossils
from the period 4-12mya where the record is essentially nonexistant
and the most important changes occured (bipedalism, human-chimp-
gorilla lines seperate).