Re: AAT Theory

Paul Crowley (
Fri, 29 Sep 95 22:10:06 GMT

In article <44cvi8$> "Alex Duncan" writes:

> In article <> Paul Crowley,
> writes:
> >"Explanation" is the key word, Chris, and I'm still waiting to see even
> >the beginnings of an attempt at a non-AAT one. Parsimony only matters
> >between two or more explanations. So far there's only one.
> If you are unaware of other explanations, then my working assumption must
> be that you've never actually read anything in the paleoanthropological
> literature. You should strap a sign to your back that says "ignorant."

My posting is partly a reply to Chris's earlier one in this thread when
he said there were two hypotheses: (a) the AAT and (b) the non-AAT.
(I paraphrase, of course, but (a) and (b) covered all instances.)
He maintained that (b) was more parsimonious, stating:

Ch> . . . Some of these arboreal primates began to walk bipedally on
Ch> land, perhaps to move efficiently from one forest to another. Tree
Ch> to land directly.

I don't regard this " . perhaps . . " as being an explanation. I am,
of course, aware of the other vague mutterings (e.g. how standing tall in
the midday sun helps to keep you cool) that occasionally pass as non-AAT
explanations. I'd just like to get Chris, and maybe yourself, to drop
his "perhaps's" and nail his colors to the mast and provide a real theory
or a genuine hypothesis.

> Once again, I'm nearly struck dumb by the depth of your ignorance.
> Please, please read some of the paleoanthropological literature before
> you post this kind of garbage. It actually hurts me to read it.

Ignorance about what _exactly_? Tell me where I said something
factually (as against theoretically/politically) incorrect.

If you can't do this, I think an apology for the vulgar abuse is due.