Re: Aquatic ape theory
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 13 Oct 95 08:39:39 GMT
In article <45k627$k92@kira.cc.uakron.edu>
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu "David L Burkhead " writes:
> In article <45j6fd$fik@news.cc.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu writes:
> > 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.
I think that I've got to agree with the substance of David's logic here.
If the loss of hair was caused by a relatively brief period 5-4mya,
then it should have come back since. It's just about possible that an
aquatic period caused a flip which would not have happened otherwise
and that new stability then set in. But I feel it's unlikely.
My view is that the advantages cited by the non-aquatic advocates have
never been credible, and that an ape living on the savannah/mosaic would
retain its hair or, if it lost it, would eventually get it back. So for
this and several other reasons, I believe that the "aquatic" period
lasted much longer: i.e. 5-1.5 mya.
Paul.
|