Re: Aquatic Predators-Cro

J. Moore (
Wed, 5 Jul 95 10:29:00 -0500

Tk> Jim, as someone else has pointed out, this crocodile thing is getting a
Tk> little old.

I can certainly understand your not wanting to hear about it, as it is
a fatal flaw in the AAT and has not been addressed by anyone connected
with that theory. It has, in fact, been ignored or at best glossed
over, as you have done.

Theories of land-based evolution of hominids *must* deal with the
problem of predation; why is it you feel that the AAT should be accorded
special treatment and be allowed to ignore it?

Tk> First off, you do realize that I could post equally as lengthy diatribes
Tk> about lions, cheetahs, leopards, tigers, hyenas or hunting dogs, and the
Tk> ancestors of each. But I feel that this would take up too much bandwidth
Tk> which is supposed to be devoted to discussions of human evolution.

It is, as I have repeatedly mentioned, critical to any theory of human
origins. So please do come up with facts that show that, for instance,
chimpanzees, creatures much the same size as our ancestors, with
similar physical and mental attributes (okay, our ancestors *might* have
been somewhat smarter than chimps), cannot deal with predators in open
savannah woodland. You can easily do this by showing that the accounts
of them dealing with said predators in said environment do not really
exist, or you could do it by showing that chimpanzees themselves do not
really exist. Otherwise, it is quite obvious that they have managed to
survive in the face of predation. If they could do it, our ancesators,
in the same environment, could have too.

Tk> Also, each one of these savanna creatures could feature equally as
Tk> gruesome antidotes as your "Japanese Soldier Tale of Terror". Again, I
Tk> really think this is filling up space without addressing the important
Tk> questions.

No, I'd like to hear one, actually. Find one and print it.

Tk> I would assume your point is this (note I am making your point in one
Tk> paragraph); that since there are predators in the water (crocodiles and
Tk> sharks) that do not respond to threat displays that early hominids could
Tk> not have evolved there. Maybe then the discussion should center around
Tk> threat displays and less on crocodile habitat.

Tk> Also, I have seen a film of a baboon being eaten by leopard. First
Tk> of, many big cats use the element of surprise, and in this case there
Tk> was very little time for a threat display. Secondly, the baboon did
Tk> turn at the end and show its rather large teeth hoping the leopard would
Tk> stop its charge, but it didn't, and the baboon got eaten anyway.

As I've mentioned, it is certain that some of our ancestors got eaten.
You can count on it. But we also see that chimps in open savannah
woodland environments have managed to survive and therefore so could we.
We do not see such an animal surviving in crocodile habitat.

Tk> As defensive strategies go, threat displays are not the best.

No, staying completely out of the habitat of the predator is "the best".

Tk> If I had my choice of being a turtle or a chimpanzee using a threat
Tk> display to scare of a leopard, I would choose being a turtle.

I'm not surprised, given that you like to stick your head in a shell
rather than face the world and all those horrible little facts you find

Tk> Lastly, Troy Kelley made this suggestion:
TK> These eggs would make a very good meal for early
TK> hominids and it would be an effective way to control the population
Tk> of
TK> crocodiles as a whole.
JM> [Now, since crocodiles undergo a lot of predation on eggs (and young as
JM> well), yet didn't decline in numbers until massive habitat destruction
JM> and hunting began a few hundred years ago, this doesn't make sense.]

Tk> Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that perhaps 10,000 (this
Tk> is an estimate) early hominid individuals, evolving in some remote semi-
Tk> aquatic corner of Africa, are suppose to make a substantial impact on
Tk> the world-wide population of crocodiles by eating their eggs!!! This is
Tk> ludicrous.

It was *your* suggestion. I agree that it was ludicrous.

Tk> The point here is that young crocodiles are easy prey, much more so than
Tk> many savanna predators, and all early hominids would have to do is
Tk> realize where crocodiles laid their eggs and the population for that
Tk> area could be controlled.

Given that crocodiles travel for miles, and that they do suffer enormous
losses of eggs and young and yet thrive anyway, we'll have to go with
your analysis of this idea as being "ludicrous".

Tk> Finally, a point about body temperature. First, it must be realized that
Tk> because the range of mammalian body temperature is fairly narrow (From
Tk> about 93 to about 106) that any difference in temperature is actually
Tk> rather large.

My, what long arms you have...that's an amazing reach!

Tk> If a human being had a body
Tk> temperature of anything more than a 100 degrees F, they would be
Tk> considered ill, and certainly 104 is deathly ill. Whereas, to the
Tk> baboon, this is an acceptable range of temperature.

Provide your source for this statement. I provided sources for my
statements; why are your statements, and the theory you espouse, to be
accorded special treatment, ie. "no sources for statements needed".

Tk> So your point that; we evolved from primates, and not from cattle or
Tk> antelope, and our body temperatures' are consistent with that of being a
Tk> primate does not hold up to comparisons with baboons, which are
Tk> primates, but exhibit internal body temperatures consistent with other
Tk> savanna creatures, but not with human beings.
Tk> Troy Kelley

I really don't think you want to get into a detailed analysis of
mammalian body temperatures with me, but if you actually think you *do*,
start by providing some sources for your statements (which by the way
are inaccurate).

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *