Re: AAT Theory

Troy Kelley (
Fri, 8 Sep 1995 13:54:35 GMT

Subject: Re: AAT Theory
From: J. Moore,
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 17:42:00 -0500
In article <> J. Moore, writes:

>Then there's the contention that no differences would be seen that
>would be recognised as aquatic. This in spite of the AAT's
>contention that, during this time and due to aquatic living,
>massive changes to our skeletons and other systems occurred. But
>AATers insist that the only skeletal changes that occurred were
>precisely those changes which can't be diffentiated from changes
>you'd expect from a land-based transition. No others.
>Jim Moore (

Jim, I see you are still at it.

This skeletal argument reminds me of my "Polar Bear Challenge" which I
posted some months ago, perhaps even a year ago. This was long before Jim
graced us with his fanatical anti-AAT diatribes.

Anyway Jim, since you weren't around then, I will briefly outline what
the Polar Bear Challenge was, so you can respond with your wit and charm

First, this argument for aquatic skeletal changes from AAT opponents is
weak. Here's why. Say you, as a paleontologist, found the fossilized
skeleton of an organism, say 2000 years from now. And say, for example,
this skeleton just happened to be a Polar Bear, which we all know is an
aquatic organism, or at least as aquatic as the AAT proponents have
envisioned. How would you, as a paleontologist know that this creature
was aquatic? You wouldn't. A paleontologist who knew nothing about
polar bears would have an impossible time concluding that the creature
was aquatic simply from a fossilized skeleton of the creature. The only
skeletal changes that I have read that have been attributed to aquatic
adaptations for the polar bear is a slightly smaller, more streamlined
head, when compared to other bears. (Streamlined... mmm.. that sounds
familiar. Humans are streamlined when compared to other primates, but

The fact is, the polar bear is an semi-aquatic creature and has become
so with very little skeletal changes. Most of the aquatic changes are
non-skeletal (i.e webbing between the toes, changes in oxygen
consumption) which is the same as the proposed human model of

So looking for skeletal changes to support, or refute AAT, is worthless
if you use the polar bear as an example of an aquatic creature with very
few aquatic adaptations.