Re: AAT Theory
pete (VINCENT@REG.TRIUMF.CA)
13 Sep 1995 00:09:05 GMT
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com) sez:
`Vi> J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com) sez:
`Vi> `Shouldn't it be up to AATers to suggest them? They're the ones
`Vi> `who say that an aquatic past caused massive changes to our
`Vi> `skeletal structure, but only in ways that look exactly like what
`Vi> `we'd see from a land-based transition.
`Vi> *Tweeet*
`Vi> Flag on the play. Seeing as we don't have a host of examples of land
`Vi> animals which have become bipedal, to refer to, I feel compelled to
`Vi> point out that the truth of that statement has not yet been established.
`Vi> It remains your opinion only.
`Vi> vincent@triumf.ca <== faster % Pete Vincent
`It's Elaine Morgan's opinion, not mine.
Ah, sorry. I see. I was reading the wrong sense into it, ie.
that you had determined that land-based transitions of quadrupeds
to bipeds would yield the skeletal structure we see. Rather you
were refering to Elaine's comment that no skeletal evidence would
be forthcoming which could be held up as being a distinguishing
feature of either an aquatic or a terrestrial ancestor.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf.ca <== faster % Pete Vincent
vincent@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca % Disclaimer: all I know I
% learned from reading Usenet.
|