Re: What did AAT Supposedly eat?

Phillip Bigelow (
Sat, 7 Jan 1995 18:15:03 GMT

Phillip Bigelow writes:
>-If their logic is correct, there would be no evolutionary pressure for
>-"poorly-equiped" aquatic apes to venture out onto the savannah. Why
>-such a creature invade such an environmentally hostile niche? Yet, a
>host of
>-modern humans presently live on the savannahs, plains, taigas, tundras,
>-and deserts of the world.

Troy Kelley writes:
>This is a crazy argument. You really think that because TODAY people can
>live on the tundra that it proves that early man was able to live on the
>tundra as well? Man was able to spread into other environmental niches
>after his TECHNOLOGY enabled him to. A naked man is actually very
>poorly suited for many environments unless his technology protects him.

So, by your logic then, Lucy must have had some type of technology, because,
according to Elaine Morgan, Lucy postdates the aquatic phase. Morgan's
hypothesis also demands that Lucy (A. afarensis) was hairless, as was Lucy's
aquatic ancestor, as are modern humans. If Lucy
postdates the aquatic phase, her species must have had some type of
technology to survive out of the water. There is no documented evidence for
any technology in A. afarensis; not fire use, not tool making, no evidence
of clothing worn. By your convoluted logic, in order for the aquatic ape to
have lost it's aquatic niche and invaded the savannah, it would have required
the hominid to have some form of technology to survive the terrestrial
environment. There is no evidence for this. Lucy was terrestrial. Not
even _Morgan_ believes that Lucy was aquatic. How could a small, hairless,
post-aquatic phase hominid with no technology survive on the savannah? Yet,
Lucy _did_ survive quite well as a terrestrial biped. This is what I meant
about the twisted, convoluted logic of the arboreal-aquatic-savannah
scenario of AAT.