Re: AAT Theory

Daan Sandee (sandee@Think.COM)
4 Sep 1995 22:46:45 GMT

In article <>, (H. M. Hubey) writes:

[rather repetitively]

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

Not proof, but fossils showing a line of descent from 7 mya to 4 mya and
found in close association with terrestrial animals wouldn't help. Nobody
is suggesting that A. afarensis was aquatic, right ? So there's no reason
why other, older fossils couldn't be determined to belong to terrestrial
hominines. All that remains to be done is find lots of fossils.
The AAT is based on the fossil gap - no fossil gap, no AAT. New finds are
continually nibbling away at the nearest end. Ardipithecus, A. anamensis,
Phillip Tobias' foot. None of these need have been ancestral, but it
would be incorrect to dismiss them by saying that because they are
obstacles to the AAT, they therefore cannot have been ancestral.

On the other hand, fossils *supporting* the AAT are unlikely to turn up.
(The AAT explains why - I don't mean they won't turn up because the AAT
is not true.)

Daan Sandee
Cambridge, MA 02142