Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
4 Sep 1995 20:53:15 -0400

sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:

>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

OK. So we have at least one reason we can nibble on. [We can discuss
the others along with the other questions which you did not
answer when the time is ripe.]

So then what is the mainstream theory's explication of the
fossil gap? Are there no fossils from this era anywhere
on earth? If not, why are the "humanoid" fossils missing?

Where did they go?

>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.)

What fossils would support AAT? Are we expecting digs in the ocean
or river beds or large lakes to reveal fossils of humanoids?

HOw would AAT make dispersion of humanoids more or less easy to


Regards, Mark