Re: AAH update (was: Bipe

J. Moore (
Mon, 10 Jul 95 11:32:00 -0500

Pa> But the scenario painted so far has a gibbon like ape of about gibbon
Pa> size making the transition.

I haven't seen the "about gibbon size" creature mentioned; rather the
constant refrain, which you nevertheless seem to have missed, is a
transitional hominid about the size of a chimpanzee.

Pa> The predators of 7.5 mybp were not notably less ferocious nor
Pa> less effective than present day predators.

No, those crocodiles were horrific, just as today...whoops, I forgot,
you're trying real hard to ignore *them*. I'm sorry I reminded you. As
for the land-based predators, we can see that open woodland savannah
chimps handle them fine, and feel that a transitional hominid which was
much the same size, although possibly somewhat smarter, could've done
the same.

But, it just occurred to me: how did your purported aquatic ancestors
survive standing around for 4-8 hours a day in crocodile-infested water?

Pa> Your sarcasm does raise an interesting issue, though. Ignoring the
Pa> special case of humans,

Why do you insist on ignoring them here? We continue:

Pa> apes have been relatively less successful than
Pa> monkeys over the last 15 million years. The number of species has
Pa> declined drastically, whereas monkeys have proliferated.

Humans have proliferated...which is why you wanted to ignore them.

However, you are also making an unsupported claim here, *and* using a
false dichotomy, or confusion of logical types. On the one hand, you
talk about "number of species declined drastically", whereas on the
other hand you say that numbers of individual monkeys "have
proliferated". Of ocurse it wouldn't help your overall argument to use
consistent logic since your facts are so often wrong, but it would help
keep you from looking such a fool.

Pa> In the time scale of evolution, it might prove that you spoke
Pa> too soon when claiming success for chimpanzees.

They are successful in evolutionary terms, since they survived. That is
the definition of evolutionary success. But I suppose it is likely that
if they had just increased their quotient of bipedal behavior, instead
of going the other direction into increased quadrupedal behavior, when
we, their cousins, did, they might've been more numerous today.
In fact, they'd be *us*. Bad luck, fellas.

Pa> In Scars, Elaine Morgan cites a wide range of respected authorities.
Pa> Some, like Pond, would rather she didn't.
Pa> Pat Dooley

I've never seen Pond say she "would rather she didn't". Please provide
your source for this claim. On the other hand, I *have* seen Pond
produce articles showing that human fat distribution and properties
do not meet the requirements of the AAT, which Morgan has ignored.

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *