Re: Refs, please... was... Re: AAT Theory

Phil Nicholls (
Sun, 22 Oct 1995 16:59:35 GMT (H. M. Hubey) graced us with the following

> (J. Moore) writes:

>>of suggestion). If you're going to argue the case for the AAT,
>>you have to deal with the problems it brings with it. I see a
>>whole lotta side-stepping whenever these problems are brought up,
>>not just from you but from every AATer around. If you're arguing
>>the case, you have to deal with these issues.

>The same problem occurs when there's the alleged shift from
>trees to the ground.

>so there's nothing new or different except the habitat's\
>specifications. AAT holds up on all counts at least as well
>and better. AAT'ers are no worse than SST'ers or MST'ers.

>it's the MST/SST that's been simply assuming that it happened
>that way since the possibility that some other process
>intervened never occurred to them in the first place.

First of all the "SST" and "MST" are bogus concepts. The fact that
you continue to invoke them demonstrates that you seem to be addicted
to straw-man type arguments.

Second, the transition from trees to ground does not present the same
problem because all anthropoid primates are can move bipedally to some
extent and because no one disagrees with the notion that there was
movement from trees to ground. Hominid bipedalism is clearly a
terrestrial adaptation. Anthropologist claim the following scenerio:

Arboreal ------------------------------------->terrestrial biped

While AAS add the following:

Arboreal ------------> Aquatic----------> terrestrial biped

Therefore the arboreal----->terrestrial is not an issue since it is
part of both scenerios.

Finally, you continue to confuse habitate with niche. Hominids
bipedalism is the result of an adaptation to a specific niche and not
merely the result of moving out onto the savannah.

> Regards, Mark

Phil Nicholls
"To ask a question you must first know most of the answer"
-Robert Sheckley