Re: What did AAT Supposedly eat?

Pat Dooley (
8 Jan 1995 16:03:29 -0500

>Science works by looking at the evidence and drawing con inferentially
>based on what we know, not what might be possible. Bipedalism is a form
>terrestrial locomotion. There are no mammals that are aquatic and
>Most of her anatomy, like that of any primate, is originally an
>adaptation to arborealism, hence the flaws in the design.

Primates have been arboreal for tens of millions of years. Most primate
species are still well adapted for such an environment. In those time
scales, evolution works out most of the flaws. Lucy was clearly descended
from an arboreal ape ancestor but her unique features certainly didn't
come from the common ancestor of humans and bonobos.

Somewhere between 12 mya and 4 mya, human evolution proceeded
down a different path from that followed by other ape species.
It wasn't the big brain, because Lucy had the usual ape sized brain.
It wasn't tools, because Lucy wasn't up to using them, at least any
more than present day apes use tools. It can't have been continued
arborealism because bipedalism is an innapropriate adaptation.
The direct descent to the savannah theory has a multitude of problems,
not the least of which is explaining how it could have evolved without
disadvantageous intermediates.

So, there are no bipedal aquatic mammals. But no primate species
have ever made such a transition, except, perhaps, one. As has
been repeatedly pointed out, when you lead a primate to water,
it wades in on its hind legs. I'll quote from one of your postings:

"... On a recent field trip,
however, the Badrians saw two female bonobos walking upright,
in the water. They snatched handfuls of floadting dead
leaves, picking out things to eat. After the apes noticed
them and fled, the investigators themselves tried the
technique. They disturbed many small fishes hiding beneath
fallen leaves. Susman has observed that numerous the bonobo
tracks along stream beds lack knucle prints."

Pat Dooley