Re: Aquatic ape theory
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
10 Oct 1995 23:31:29 -0400
ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI (Osmo Ronkanen) writes:
>As I said, my intent was not to prove that there was no aquatic ape. My
>intent was to show that the AAT cannot be used to justify the fact that
>people do not gave hair.
Well, naturally we have to disagree :-).
I just posted on this heat-rejection and hair loss problem again.
Please see the other post.
>Cover by what? By Animal furs? That requires stone tools to handle the
>fur and probably even hunting. We are then talking at Homo Habilis or
>even Homo Erectus. That is millions of years past the AA.
Of course, I agree with you partially on this point. The intellectual
capability of covering up probably didn't come until much later but
the hairless ape hanging around hot water(??) would probably
be OK.
But covering up with brushes or branches would have probably
been possible. I think even lower animals probably have enough
sense to escape into the shade if possible.
>But why did the fur not "grow" back? Had it been beneficial that should
>have happened, had it not been beneficial, one does not need the AAT.
But this was exactly what the first paragraph was about. Why
should it grow back? Now it had a nice heat rejection system
and it served it well. Hanging around hot water (??) and a
forest nearby perhaps, it would have done just fine.
Wasn't there a lake fed by some mountain streams and a forest
nearby in Lucy's location? I'm not sure about the time lines
although I can easily look it up.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|