Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
4 Sep 1995 17:51:50 -0400 (J. Moore) writes:

>Mike Reid <> writes:

>MR> Why is there such vehemence against the Aquatic Ape Theory?
>MR> It's true that it's far out and lacks strong fossil evidence to
>MR> support it, but that does not mean that it's wrong!

>It doesn't lack "strong fossil evidence"; it lacks *any* fossil

What would be considered fossil evidence *for* AAT?

What would be considered fossil evidence *against* AAT?

In fact, it has been specifically stated online by
>Elaine Morgan that she considers no fossil evidence, no matter
>what it is, can possibly ever disprove the AAT, which essentially

She's right.

What is "proof"? Let's start with fundamentals.

How does one go about proving that AAT is incorrect?

>of aquatic living. Paleoanthropology has also always suggested
>that hominids evolved from an hominoid ancestor, but rejects the
>mechanism of an aquatic past (well, except for the aquatic past all
>life on earth shares).

What fossil evidence exists for the view that the
"mechanism of an aquatic past" should be rejected?

What fossil evidence could "prove" that AAT is wrong?


Regards, Mark