Re: What did AAT Supposedly eat?

Phillip Bigelow (
Sat, 7 Jan 1995 17:39:42 GMT (Sir CPU) writes:

>Phillip Bigelow writes:

>-Hypothesizing what "AAT" ate is akin to building a hypothesis based on a
>-pre-existing hypothesis. It is pointless. We don't have any AAT fossils
>-prove that such an animal even exists, leave alone that it had specific
>diet requirements.

Troy Kelley responds:
>Ahh.. but we do have AAT fossils and plenty of them. Lucy is a good one,
>there are numberous astraliopethicus fossils and plenty of early homonid
>fossils. There was even a new discovery of a. ramidus. Didn't you hear
>about that?

Troy, I know of no one, except you, who has called the known hominid
fossils as "AAT fossils". As far as I know, even Morgan herself hasn't
stated such a thing. The hominid fossils in the collections of the world,
except for the new discovery of A. ramadus, have all been classified as
terrestrial bipeds. If any of them _was_ classified as an aquatic hominid,
it would have appeared in a science journal stating this, not to mention in
a plethura of popular magazines from _Time_ to _Weekly Reader_.
Where on earth do you get your information?