Re: First Family and AAT

H. M. Hubey (
5 Oct 1995 22:39:12 -0400

Ralph L Holloway <> writes:

>On 4 Oct 1995, H. M. Hubey wrote:

>That you would even ask a question like this suggests that you have a
>really minimnal understanding of what evolution is or has been. You want

I'm only doing this because this is the kind of argument that
I see being used against AAT.

One can produce the same types of arguments against the SAT. Almost
all of it looks like case by case.

So far I haven't seen any reason to believe the SAT. It has
nothing going for it; nothing better than AAT anyway.

>a mathematical theory, for processes that are utterly opportunistic.
>Give us a break with the differential equations bit, and sit down and
>read a good text on evolutionary biology.. Doug Futuyama comes to mind.
>Anyway, thanks for the exposure to truly primitive thought...
>Ralph Holloway

The reason I mention the DE bit is a very simple one. So far the
kind of thinking I see posted here shows a very simple and
primitive train of thought that is unsuitable even to explain
simple processes of physics -- as in inanimate object behavior
of the simplest kind -- let alone something as complex as

A typical example (simplified naturally) goes like this: Well,
the ape started to first use tools, then its brain got bigger and
it started to stand erect. Or, oh no, it first started to stand
erect freeing its hands for grasping; then its brain got bigger
because of tool use.

Complex systems don't behave this way. There is simultaneous
cause-effect in many dimensions at once. And DE's are a
perfect way of expressing these relationships, and that's why
they are used. The AAT shows a scenario in which all of the
effects above are synergistic (i.e. positive feedback).
In other words, water makes it easy for them to adopt a bipedal
stance because of the buoyancy effect. This naturally makes it
easier to use the arms/hands/forefeet. Coupled with this is the
effect of being able to get a secure habitat by escaping to
deeper water which naturally positively reinforces longer legs,
a more bipedal posture, and freeing up arms for use of tools
etc etc. There's a gigantic postive feedback mechanism in which
the primary components, bipedalism, arm/hand use, brain increase
all positively effect one another. And there's a perfect negative
feedback mechanism which culls the short legged, partially
bipedal ones by having them fall to predation.

There's no such scenaria on the savannah. As soon as they leave
the trees they're sitting ducks. They couldn't even find food
let alone escape predators.


Regards, Mark