Re: Aquatic predators... was Re: AAT Theory

Thomas Clarke (
21 Oct 1995 13:34:55 GMT

In article <> (J. Moore) writes:
Cl - refers to me, Tom Clarke

>Cl> She was refering to crocodiles and how they might prefer fish to
>Cl> hominds.

>She seems to be referring to one of the very few times she's ever
>mentioned anything about aquatic predators; how she read in a
>Time-Life book that during the yearly runs of tilapia, herdsmen
>can wade across a river with little concern. She doesn't mention
>what happens during the majority of the year, when the tilapia
>aren't running.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

>Cl> Personally I think the in-water predation issue is overdone.

>From a previous post to Troy Kelley, when he said much the same as
>you just did:

>I can certainly understand your not wanting to hear about it, as it is
>a fatal flaw in the AAT and has not been addressed by anyone connected
>with that theory. It has, in fact, been ignored or at best glossed
>over, as you have done.

Why is it fatal? Why is not predation by lions etc a fatal flaw
for scenarios that have the hominds going directly from the trees
to bipedalism on the savannah?

>Theories of land-based evolution of hominids *must* deal with the
>problem of predation; why is it you feel that the AAT should be accorded
>special treatment and be allowed to ignore it?

I ignore it no more than people who reject the AAT, ignore land
carnivore predation. The homind can't outrun a lion. It can't
outswim a crocodile. Some got eaten. I think there's a skull in
South Africa that has holes that match cheetah teeth.

I just don't think it is significant factor to drive theeveolution
for the hominds one way or the other, land or water.

I am trying a new tack. Let me try it on you.

Would you admit the possibility that early hominids may have obtained part
of their calories from things living in the water?

Tom Clarke