Re: AAT Theory

J. Moore (
Mon, 11 Sep 95 18:50:00 -0500

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

Tk> Jim, I see you are still at it.

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

I'm surprised to see you no longer on the AAT side, Troy -- why
else would you be aching to provide the anti-AAT case of the polar
bear. But you're right when you say that the case of the polar
bear is indeed a grave challenge to the AAT. The challenge, of
course, results from the fact that the polar bear seems not to have
any of the changes the AAT insists are a natural and necessary
consequence of aquatic life. No predominate bipedalism or "pelvis
straightening", the pattern of fat deposits is the same as
terrestrial bears, no hairlessness, no descended larnyx, no
ventral-ventral sex.

Yes, we can all agree with you that the "polar bear challenge" is
a difficult problem for the proponents of the AAT, and one which
they haven't addressed. I commend you for bringing it up; now
are you going to address it?

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

Tk> First, this argument for aquatic skeletal changes from AAT opponents is
Tk> weak. Here's why. Say you, as a paleontologist, found the fossilized
Tk> skeleton of an organism, say 2000 years from now. And say, for example,
Tk> this skeleton just happened to be a Polar Bear, which we all know is an
Tk> aquatic organism, or at least as aquatic as the AAT proponents have
Tk> envisioned. How would you, as a paleontologist know that this creature
Tk> was aquatic? You wouldn't. A paleontologist who knew nothing about
Tk> polar bears would have an impossible time concluding that the creature
Tk> was aquatic simply from a fossilized skeleton of the creature.

Tk> The only skeletal changes that I have read that have been
Tk> attributed to aquatic adaptations for the polar bear is a slightly
Tk> smaller, more streamlined head, when compared to other bears.

Guess you answered your own question.

Tk> (Streamlined... mmm.. that sounds familiar. Humans are streamlined
Tk> when compared to other primates, but anyway).

Do give us the references which support this completely unsupported
claim of yours. And do explain why the AAT is supposed to be
given this special preferential "no refs required" status.

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

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

You've already stated that you do find skeletal changes in polar
bears. Further, even as AATers here claim that the fossil record
is irrelevant to the study of human evolution, the AAT at the same
time claims that *massive* skeletal changes happened to us as a
result of a relatively brief aquatic interlude. It simply states
that, although there were truly *massive* skeletal changes which
happened as a natural consequence of aquatic life, just by the
greatest of coincidences the only changes that did occur were
those which cannot be distinguished from those we'd see as a result
of a land-based transition. Mighty suspicious coincidence.

The real problem you face if you want to use the polar bear as an
example is that the polar bear seems not to have any of the changes
the AAT insists are a necessary consequence of aquatic life. Fat
pattern the same as terrestrial bears, etc.

Now, when you crept away for the summer, you were about to post
information about incidents where land predators had killed
hundreds of well-armed humans during a single night. The
predators you mentioned were lions, cheetahs, leopards, tigers,
hyenas and hunting dogs. You didn't seem to think this would in
the least bit difficult, and I've been eagerly awaiting these
true "gruesome antidotes" [sic], as you called them. Why haven't
you posted them? I hope you weren't just spouting BS.

Well, if you were, perhaps you'd just explain how your purported
aquatic ancestors survived while standing around in chest-deep
crocodile-infested waters 4-8 hours a day. You never got around
to that, either.

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *