J. Moore (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 22 Jul 95 12:15:00 -0500
El> J.D. Moore asks where did anybody see a film of bonobos wading
El> Elaine Morgan
Hmmm, actually J.D. Moore did not ask anything like "where did
anybody see a film of bonobos wading bipedally?" I actually asked
a quite specific question of Pat Dooley, who claimed to have seen
this "on TV":
Pat> The fact remains that the other species
Pat> I named do wade bipedally. I've even seen them do it on TV.
JM> I've seen them stand and walk bipedally out of water, especially when
JM> carrying things or displaying. Just out of curiousity, and certainly
JM> not because I think you're lying or anything, just when and where on
JM> TV *did* you see bonobos "wading bipedally"? I'd like the title of the
JM> show, with enough information about it so I can see it myself.
I'm still waiting for Pat's reply, but it hasn't been forthcoming;
sorta makes you wonder, doesn't it... not that I think he was
lying or anything.
Morgan's reformulation of my question is obviously intended to
make it sound like I questioned whether bonobos had ever been seen
to wade bipedally, which of course I didn't do. Nor would I, as
it's well known that bonobos have been seen wading bipedally in
shallow water, as well as walking and standing bipedally in many
situations, generally when using threats or when carrying large
fruits. This is common to many primates, as has been pointed out
in this newsgroup many many times.
Also note that these bonobos wading in shallow water are actually
evidence which *contradicts* the AAT rather than being evidence
for it. The AAT says that the costs of standing upright when not
supported by water are so great as to outweigh the benefits to a
degree that it was virtually impossible. Chapters 3 and 4 in *The
Scars of Evolution* are devoted to this theme (it's the *entire*
theme of chapter 3, "The Cost of Walking Erect"). This support by
water is the key element in the AAT's scenario of the development
of bipedalism. The fact that these bonobos are not in water deep
enough to support them or force them to walk bipedally yet do so
anyway is therefore the *opposite* of what the AAT says would happen.
The AAT is not simply about nearness to water.
El> Jim Moore wrote at one point " I have seen Pond produce articles
El> showing that human fat distribution and properties do not meet the
El> requirements of the AAT, which Morgan has ignored."
El> Please give me the reference for these articles. I have seen
El> indications that Pond does not agree with AAT or wish to be associated
El> with it. I have not seen any article in which she produces evidence
El> that would disprove it. I would be grateful if you could tell me
El> where to find this evidence.
Interesting rhetorical device, that; that my statement that Pond
produced articles "showing that human fat distribution and properties
do not meet the requirements of the AAT" be turned into a
statement that Pond "disproves the AAT", which is so much easier
to knock down. Excellent strawman work; well up to your usual level.
Pond deals soley with the subject of fat, and her statements deal
with the fact that the requirements of the AAT in regard to fat do
not square with the evidence. I'm surprised you here claim not to
be aware of her article in *The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?* as
well as the article which appears in *New Scientist* (4 June 87) on
the same page you quoted her from in *The Scars of Evolution* (that
article being "Not an aquatic ape -- just an exceptionally fat mammal").
I am still waiting for Pat Dooley to support the claim he made in
the post whose reply you took my quote from: that Pond has stated
that she "would rather she [Morgan] didn't" cite her. Pat?
DB> >name one aquatic mammal that became bipedal"
El> Nobody can name any nonhuman animal aquatic or otherwise that became
El> bipedal so that's a bit pointless-
AATers have repeatedly held up the inability to name such a terrestrial
mammal as a crucial failing of theories of land-based hominid divergence;
yet for the AAT itself, this is apparently not an issue...
Why is the AAT, alone amongst theories of hominid divergence, supposed
to be given this preferential treatment?
El> -- InThe Scars of Evolution you will seek in vain for a
El> mention of hair tracts or swimming babies or the directionf the
El> nostrils. New evidence for AAT comes in faster than
El> anything I have to keep in abeyance pending further facts. I do't say
El> you should buy that book because that would infringe Netiquette but
El> I strongly urge you to get a copy from a library.
All these things, however, were stated in 1982's *The Aquatic
Ape* (although you have previously inaccurately claimed the nose
business only appeared in your 1972 book). If they have been
dropped from the roster of AAT evidence between then and 1990,
it sounds like evidence is disappearing rather than accumulating.
Jim Moore (email@example.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *