Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (
5 Sep 1995 22:57:44 -0400

sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) writes:

>Yes, there are hominoid fossils from this era. But they are very
>fragmentary and though I believe they are unlikely to be classified
>as ancestral to Pan or Gorilla, they cannot be identified as ancestral
>to later hominines (such as Australopithecus) either. They may belong to a

It seems that more weight should be given to other evidence like
hairlessness, diving reflex, and some of the others mentioned since
it's hard to push this "bone eyeballing" far enough to be able
to differentiate at a higher resolution.

Let's face it, the naked eye has a limit of resolution which can be
overcome with microscopes and telescopes. The "tool" of looking
at bones seems to reach its limits when it cannot differentiate
between various types of monkeys, and dogs. it hardly makes sense
to push it even beyond it to try to tell if X and Y are different
species because someone has found a single tooth and wonders if
it belongs to X or Y, or something as silly.

If we have a ruler which can at best measure to millimeters one
would be pretty silly to try to compare the thicknesses of an
Oriental person's hair and say a Europoid's hair. It can't be
done with a ruler. And this "bone tool" has gone beyond its
limit of resolution; time to give up on it.

>I'm not asking for fossils. I am saying that the AAT includes an
>explanation why there aren't any AAT fossils.

Again, what are AAT fossils? Is where they are found make them
AAT fossils or not? As it is we are guessing what the earth
looked like millions of years ago and where the oceans were etc.
Adding more and more guesses to more and more guesses makes the answers
less and less reliable.


Regards, Mark