Re: Aquatic ape theory

Thomas Clarke (
5 Oct 1995 12:45:31 GMT

In article <44ajv5$> (UrOpiate)

Another prime example of the literary/scientific style clash.
I will attempt to translate.

> This Aquatic Ape anyone of its proponenets or originators
> actually an anthropologist? this is perhaps the most preposterous thoery i
> have ever heard..since creationism.

Then you don't understand creationism and what it is trying to accomplish.

> What is it attempoting to
> explain?

The transition of common ancestor to human-like hominid.

>..And where lies the evidence. There is physical evidence for
> Bipedalism..check the bones.

This is also evidence for the AAT. Where are the half-bipedal bones?

> There is geological evidence for a Savannah
> type terrain.

There is geological evidence for isolated islands as a result of
sea-level fluctuations,

> And the insistance on refering to early primates as apes is
> uneducated,

No, just literary style.

>just as it would be to them human. All primates share common
> ancestors...ancestors included i the family of Primates. Perhaps a course
> in physical anthropology might be useful here

Perhaps a course in English literature would be useful :-)

Tom Clarke