J. Moore (
Thu, 6 Jul 95 14:59:00 -0500

El> There has been a torrent of stuff lately under various headings that
El> all really relates to AAT. Some of it inevitably has been answered
El> before, but the enquirers have moved on and the answers have been
El> forgotten.

The same small group of AAT-supporting "enquiring minds" are still here.

El> But I would like to reply to some serious misrepresentations.

El> Jim Moore says that that "all" (sic) supporters of AAT claim that a
El> major reason for the evolution of bipedalism was that wading in water
El> helped to support the body weight. I do not know of anybody that says
El> this. He quotes one sentence of mine out of context. I was suggesting
El> weight support was a minor spin-off, an accidental advantage which
El> happened to make the business of walking on two legs (diffficult for a
El> beginner in any circumstances) one degree less difficult.

*********************** quotes ***********************

1990 *The Scars of Evolution*
Elaine Morgan. Souvenir Press: London

pg. 47:
In the aquatic scenario the position is reversed. Walking erect in
flooded terrain was less an option than a necessity. The behavioural
reward -- being able to walk and breathe at the same time -- was
instantly available. And most of the disadvantages of bipedalism were
cancelled out.
Erect posture imposes no strain on the spine under conditions of
head-out immersion in water. There is no added weight on the lumbar
vertebrae. The discs are not vertically compressed. (An astronaut in
zero gravity gains an inch in height in space, and immersion in water is
the nearest thing to zero gravity on planet Earth.)

pp. 47-48:
Water thus seems to be the only element in which bipedalism for the
beginner may have been at the same time compulsory and relatively free
of unwelcome physical consequences.

*********************** end quotes ***********************

>From these quotes you can see that the support provided by water is
considered to be a critically important part of the purported aquatic
transition to bipedalism. Despite Morgan's claim to the contrary.

El> He says that another "major" reason we "all" use is that life in water
El> was safer. I don't know of anyone that says that.

*********************** quotes ***********************

Sir Alister Hardy, "Was there a *Homo aquaticus*?", article originally
appeared in *Zenith*, 1977, vol. 15(1):4-6.
Reprinted in 1982 *The Aquatic Ape* by Elaine Morgan, Stein and Day:
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.

pg. 150:
Perhaps it was not only a shortage of food that sent man to the water
in the first place, but also a means of escaping from powerful
predators: possibly *Homo aquaticus* was only able to survive and evolve
with the help of a number of small sandy or rocky islands strectching up
the tropical coasts or margins of lakes where he could live in large
colonies, like those of seals or penguins, and where his only enemies
were sharks and killer whales in the sea or crocodiles in lakes and

1991 *The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?* Edited by Machteld Roede,
Jan Wind, John M. Patrick and Vernon Reynolds. Souvenir Press: London.

Leon P. Lumiere
Chapter 3. "The Evolution of Genus *Homo*: Where It Happened"

pg. 27:
The dwindling forest would produce exactly the environmental conditions
required by the Hardy hypothesis; those apes near the coast, losing
their forest, gradually would be forced into water to find both food and
protection from predators.

Derek Ellis
Chapter 4. "Is an Aquatic Ape Viable in Terms of Marine Ecology and
Primate Behavior?"

pg. 37:
How did apes survive on the savannah when there were fierce, fast
predators there, day and night?

pg. 67:
Escape from land-based predators, when the apes were on
shore, would be by running back to water and swimming away.

*********************** end quotes ***********************

>From these quotes you can see that escape from predators is considered
to be an extremely important part of the purported aquatic transitional
environment. Despite Morgan's claim to the contrary.

Frankly, I'm not surprised when someone like Pat Dooley posts here and
continually shows himself to be ignorant not only of non-AAT theories of
human evolution, but ignorant of even the writings of AAT-supporters.
But I am *astonished* when Elaine Morgan shows herself to be ignorant
not only of the writings of the originator of the theory, and the
writings of the other AAT-supporters from the AA-Fact or Fiction?
Conference, but apparently ignorant of even *her own* writings, quoted
above. Sure, she misquotes Darwin, and puts crab-eating macaques
in Japan, and has American, rather than Japanese, scientists studying
the macaques on Koshima. Sure, she incorrectly says sea otters mate
ventro-ventrally and that all non-human primates don't. But I thought
she'd at least get straight what *she herself* has written...

El> The whole drift of my
El> argument about b.p. is that in the early stages of adaptation to it it
El> is such an inept method of getting around that it would only have been
El> adopted under duress.

Tell it to brachiators, like gibbons. (That's "brachiator", as in "the
common ancestor of African apes and humans was likely a brachiator".)
Brachiators virtually *always* use bipedalism when on the ground,
probably because they're so used to using it in the eclectic mix of
locomotor styles they use aloft.

El> Most of the antiAAT arguments are based on arguments I have not used for
El> over twenty years.

You also said that a few posts ago, about something I said about your
1982 book. Are the years shorter in England?

El> We have been twenty times reminded
El> that for an ape walking on two legs takes no more energy that walking on
El> four (no less either)

And references for this have been provided.

El> Okay, but running on two takes a hell of a lot
El> more energy for an ape - something like four times - and it is SLOWER.
El> Elaine

Why does your theory get this special "no references required" treatment?

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *