Re: AAT Theory

Richard Foy (
Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:19:56 GMT

In article <>,
J. Moore <> wrote:
>I am not aware that they walk bipedally, only that they
>occassionally stand up. Please give the references which support
>your claim that wild polar bears regularly walk bipedally as do
>many, indeed most, primates.

IMO it is likely that the polar bears use the water environment in a
totally different way from the AAT human ancestors. This would mean
that they may or many not be a good case to discuss. There are many
acquatic or semi-aquatic species with all kinds of physical
characteristics. The evolutionary adapations are IMO likely to be
consistant with the way that the environment was used.


>As I've mentioned, it is certain that some of our ancestors got eaten.
>You can count on it. But we also see that chimps in open savannah
>woodland environments have managed to survive and therefore so could we.
>We do not see such an animal surviving in crocodile habitat.
>All theories of human evolution must deal with the issue of how
>the transitional hominids dealt with predators. The theories of
>land-based transition do so, and I have posted the (well-referenced)
>information showing that they could have dealt with land-based
>predators, and that there is in fact an animal model which shows
>that this anti-predator behavior worked for an animal with attributes
>like early hominids (similar size, physical abilities, swimming
>speed [I'll give them the [unlikely] speed of the fastest Olympic
>swimmers: 5.1048 mph], spends 4-8 hours a day up in 3-4 feet of
>water, and which reproduces as slowly as do chimps and humans who
>gather/hunt today). The AAT has consistently side-stepped this
>critical issue: Why is the AAT, alone amongst theories of hominid
>divergence, supposed to be given this preferential treatment?

I haven't seen this post. If you have it handy could you e-mail it

"The hammer shatters glass but forges steel." --Russian proverb Weaving a World Wide Web