Re: Aquatic ape theory

Thomas Clarke (
12 Oct 1995 13:50:37 GMT

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.
There would be no selective pressures for reaquiring hair since
a new evolutionarily stable mode of savannah existence would have
been attained.
Judging by subsequent success the upright hairless mode, once
attained, works very well indeed.

Tom Clarke