Re: Aquatic ape theory

David L Burkhead (
12 Oct 1995 22:49:43 GMT

In article <45j6fd$> writes:
>In article <> Paul Crowley
><> writes:
>> In article <44ne82$>
>> 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
>> > hair would have been beneficial for living in land, it should have
>> > returned.
>> Good point. I don't know what other AATer's think, but my own view
>> is that the "aquatic" phase lasted until very recently.
>The answer is very simple. Once the ape was upright with no hair,
>then all the advantages cited by the non-aquatic advocates for
>upright hairlessness in the savanah would apply.

If the advantages are there to begin with, then no "aquatic
phase" is necessary for the acquisition of the traits. The advantage
of _keeping_ them is also sufficent to explain _acquiring_ them.

>There would be no selective pressures for reaquiring hair since
>a new evolutionarily stable mode of savannah existence would have
>been attained.

If there was no selective pressure for reaquiring hair, then
there must not be a pressure to _keep_ hair. Thus, any advantage to
losing hair would have dominated. Since such advantages _can_ be seen
in human functioning, they would have to have dominated if there were
no counter pressures. And if there _were_ counter pressures, then
they would have been just as functional after an "aquatic phase" as

>Judging by subsequent success the upright hairless mode, once
>attained, works very well indeed.

Which is a pretty good reason why no aquatic phase is needed to
explain their development.

David L. Burkhead

Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine

Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831