Re: Re: AAT Questions...

J. Moore (
Sat, 8 Jul 95 14:01:00 -0500

JM> 4. Hardy and others say we learned to make sharpened stone tools,
JM> knives, and even spears while in this supposed aquatic phase of
JM> the transition, and to hunt and butcher large animals: why did
JM> we quit doing these extremely useful things for 4-6 million years
JM> after supposedly learning to do so in the water?
Pa> >
Pa> >Pa> certainly, Modern proponents of the AAT make no such claims.
Pa> >
Pa> It's mentioned in *The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?* (1991) (along
Pa> with the idea that the aquatic phase was when we got used to cooked
Pa> food!). Morgan also mentioned it in *The Aquatic Ape* (1982). I'm
Pa> always surprised that you apparently don't read, or perhaps just don't
Pa> comprehend, the non- AAT writings on human evolution, but I'm downright
Pa> flabbergasted that you apparently don't even read (or perhaps just
Pa> don't comprehend) the AAT writings!

Pa> I quote Hardy: <deleted>

Pa> Humans have been killing and butchering every large mammal, terrestrial
Pa> or aquatic, that they could get their weapons into, for the past million
Pa> years or so. Dugongs would have been the easiest of prey for the post
Pa> aquatic ape.

I repeat the question then. Since the divergence, which supposedly was
this aquatic phase which included hunting and butchering large animals,
was 4-6 million years before there is any evidence of sharp tools, or
butchering or hunting of large animals:
why did we quit doing these extremely useful things for 4-6 million years
after supposedly learning to do so in the water? Why did we stop using
these extremely useful sharp cutting tools for 4-6 million years
after supposedly learning to do so in the water?

JM> This is another false dichotomy: "true tool-making" as opposed to say,
JM> the types of tool-making seen used by chimpanzees.

Pa> True tool making means actually working the stones to create an edge.
Pa> Are you claiming wild chimpanzees do this; and that they retain the
Pa> products of this labour for reuse over an extended periuod.

Pat, you can't Humpty Dumpty the field of paleoanthropology to suit your
own whims; "true tool making" means "really making tools". If you want
to restrict the discussion to worked and sharpened stone tools, you say
"worked and sharpened stone tools", not "true tool making". Like it or
not, chimps make tools, truly.

(The Humpty Dumpty reference, for those who don't know it, is from
*Through the Looking Glass*: "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said
in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --
neither more nor less.")

Pa> The animals that have evolved such salt excretion mechanisms are 100%
Pa> aquatic with no access to fresh water. A creature that spends a
Pa> significant time on land would have access to fresh water. The fact that
Pa> there are signs of a salt excretion mechanism in humans but not apes is
Pa> significant.

Oh Pat, this is just plain pitiful. Haven't you considered *ever*
reading and learning? I mean... someday? Your first sentence is
categorically wrong. Period. No question mark. Your third sentence is
equally telling. In fact there *is* a salt excretion mechanism in *all*
mammals. True, there are uncontrolled, and hence ineffective, ones such
as tears and sweat in many mammals, but the regulated, effective mechanism
is via the kidneys. This is why marine mammals (like cetaceans, seals,
and sea otters) evolve large, heavily lobulated kidneys. It's *the*
mammalian way to control salt and water balance in a regulated manner,
which is a necessary function for all mammals, as it is for virtually
all vertebrates, although some use different organs for this purpose
than do mammals.

Doesn't the constant exposure of your ignorance bother you?

JM> >Why do you insist the AAT be accorded special privileges in its
JM> >arguments (this is called, in evolutionary circles, "special
JM> pleading")?

Pa> Huh?

Well, this time I must say your reply speaks for itself.

Pa> It's a bit hard to figure out what point you are trying to make,
Pa> though.
Pa> Pat Dooley (

JM> >Although my points are listed extremely clearly, I am not in the least
JM> >surprised that you found it "a bit hard to figure out", given the
JM> >constantly mounting evidence of your lack of reading and comprehension
JM> >of even the sources of the theory you espouse.

Pa> This from the person who thinks evolution will proceed quite happily so
Pa> long as the disadvantageous adaptations aren't critical.
Pa> Pat Dooley

Well, I do think that, just as do all reasonably knowledgeable people
with even the vaguest grasp of evolutionary theory.
I know you don't understand the rather obvious problem inherent in your
view, but I've ceased being surprised at that.

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *