Re: An alternative to ST and AAT

Paul Crowley (
Sun, 20 Oct 96 10:29:32 GMT

In article <> "Phil Nicholls" writes:

> Sorry, but the archaeological and paleontological data strongly
> supports the inference tha (a) early hominind accestors were initally
> arboreal and (2) hominids moved out onto the savanna. This is not a
> theory.

So an inference is not a theory. I get it. It's a dogma.
It's unquestionable.

Of course, it's as wrong as most unquestionable "scientific"
dogmas have been, such as: "The earth does not move" or "All
species were created by God". Like those, it takes no more
that a couple of minutes serious thought to dispel it --
provided, of course, that you're open to thought.

> Those who advocate the AA"T" advocate only an additional stop
> along the way . .

This is not true. While Alistair Hardy and some other supporters
of the AAT fell into the trap of accepting the "dogma" as having
some validity, this is no longer true.

Until H.s.s. and the likes of the Masai, no hominids could have
survived on the savanna. What were they supposed to have lived
on? How could they have held off nocturnal predators? Where
did they sleep at night? How could they have endured the heat
of the midday Sun? Where did they get their water? How did
they survive the frequent bitterly cold night temperatures?

Assuming that this savanna had trees, what advantages did
hominids have over chimpanzees? If they consumed a chimp-type
diet, why did they have completely different dentition?

The slightest glance at our morphology tells us that we could
never have survived in such an environment, let alone evolved
in it. I agree that it is not a theory. A theory has to have
some mental content. No one has ever presented a coherent
account of "early hominid life on the savanna" because such an
account is impossible. It started as an unquestioned
assumption and turned into an unquestionable dogma.

I'm quite sure that in a few years we'll be telling our children:
"Look at what was believed back then. Wasn't it crazy?"