Re: AAT Theory
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Tue, 5 Sep 95 18:24:00 -0500
JM> In fact, it has been specifically stated online by
JM> Elaine Morgan that she considers no fossil evidence, no matter
JM> what it is, can possibly ever disprove the AAT, which essentially
HMH> She's right.
So you agree with Morgan that the fossil record is irrelevant to
the subject of paleoanthropology. Very bizarre contention, that.
HMH> What would be considered fossil evidence *for* AAT?
Obviously, indications of an aquatic existence. You couldn't
figure that out yourself?
HMH> What would be considered fossil evidence *against* AAT?
First, understand that the question I'm answering here is whether
fossil evidence could possibly help or hurt the AAT. Unlike Morgan's
(and your) view, I say it could. I am not talking about the
likelihood of it happening either way, although it must be
understood that if our ancestors were actually shore-dwelling
waders and swimmers, we would expect to be up to our ears in
hominid fossils, which we are not. (On that subject note that
Morgan and other AATers propose that australopithecines at least
as late as "Lucy" were indulging in this lifestyle in inland
waters.)
Now, just off the top of my head, for instance, if we found
fossils of the common ancestor we share with African apes, and it
turned out to be as bipedal as australopithecines, that would be
extremely strong evidence aginst the AAT. The AAT says that
predominately bipedal hominids could not evolve on land, and that
they evolved at the same time and place as many features which are
derived compared to the African apes. If the CA was predominately
bipedal, it would make this combination impossible.
This would falsify the AAT; however, Morgan has stated that fossil
evidence is irrelevant to the theory, unlike all other theories of
human evolution. Perhaps you could explain why the AAT is
supposed to be granted this special preferential treatment? While
you're at it, perhaps you'd care to answer the AAT questions that
the proponents of that theory have been ducking for months.
HMH> Regards, Mark
Now of course I realise, from reading your post and the way you
wrote it up, that you're probably actually looking to just play
semantic games instead of actually looking at what science can
tell us about our past, so don't be surprised if you get few
replies, and fewer followups, to your posts. Semantic games
are boring compared to real paleoanthro.
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *
|