Re: Aquatic ape theory
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
4 Oct 1995 21:49:24 -0400
ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>In article <hubey.812627023@pegasus.montclair.edu>,
>H. M. Hubey <hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
>>ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>>
>>
>>>If the aquatic life bought bipedalism, then it must have happened some
>>>4-5 million years ago. If it also caused the loss of body hair, then why
>>>did the body hair not return when the aquatic life was over? If the body
>----------------- restoring unmarked deletion- ---------------------------
>>>hair would have been beneficial for living in land, it should have
>>>returned. If it was harmful, then one needs no AAT to explain the loss.
>>>I cannot think how having the hair or lack of it could have been so
>>>irrelevant that millions of years of evolution did not change it.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gee, it is easy to argue when you delete the part where I tell that your
>explanation makes the whose AAT unnecessary. If the body hair had become
>unnecessary because other facts the evolution would have gotten rid of
>it anyway for example so that the controlling of body temperature could
>be done by sweating.
>Please do not in the future resort to unmarked deletions.
I cut it out because it was unnecessary.
Let's see how it goes.
***** a) IF I fall into a lake, I will get wet.
However this does not mean that
****** b) If I am wet, I must have fallen into a lake.
That's obviously because there are other ways of getting wet. What
one can derive from (a) is:
c) If I am not wet, I couldn't have fallen into a lake.
Now, suppose this sentence is true:
***** 0) If an animal has aquatic life style,
then it will [eventually] lose its body hair.
Naturally, the truth of this sentence (if true) does not imply
that this sentence must also be true:
1) If an animal does not have an aquatic life style, then it will
grow body hair.
2) If animal has lost its body hair, then it must have had an
aquatic life style.
If (0) is true, it's equivalent to
3) If an animal hasn't/will_not [eventually?] lost/lose its
body, hair then it couldn't/doesn't have an aquatic life style.
Of course, this is not true (!) since otters and bears could have
aquatic life styles and still keep their hair/fur but that's the
failure of bivalent logic when it has to deal with the real world.
What we should really say is to make a more general and complicated
statement. And I think it's being made by many people.
>The fact is that we cannot ignore the most recent 5 or so million years
>in evolution when one considers something as fundamental as body hair.
>Osmo
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|