Re: Crowley's post to

Thomas Clarke (
15 Nov 1995 19:43:29 GMT

In article <48bfif$> Alex Duncan
<> writes:

> First, a comment on Paul's claim that the debate is "serious". It is
> not. There are several folks in s.a.p. that find the debate moderately
> interesting, mostly as an exercise in argument. However, the aquatic ape
> theory is simply not plausible. It consists of a list of supposedly
> unique human features that [according to AAT supporters] could only have
> evolved in an aquatic environment.

You confuse fact and theory.

It is perfectly possible that early hominids spent part of their
eveolution in an aquatic of near-aquatic environment. There is
nothing about hominids that is inconsistent with this.
It is perfectly possible that early hominds developed in a
moutain environment. !! Say does bipedalsim confer moutain
climbing abilities ?? :-)
[Although the gap between the pongid/hominid split as determined from
DNA and the earliest hominid fossils is getting narrow]

The evidence cited in support of and arguments made for
hominds actually having had an aquatic or near-aquatic episode,
the AAT theory, is of course as you have often pointed out not
up to full scientific scrutiny.

> Other features, such as bipedalism, have an
> evolutionary history that is well-documented by the fossil record.

Not so. There were non-bipedal miocene apes.
There were fully bipedal Australopithecines. There is nothing
in between. There is no documented evolutionary history of bipedalism.

> The
> fossil record provides no evidence that bipedalism evolved in an aquatic
> habitat.

Nor does it provide evidence that it evolved in any other
particular habitat.

I tend to agree that the rest of Crowleys's post is a bit confused.

Tom Clarke