Re: Aquatic ape theory
Richard Foy (rfoy@netcom.com)
Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:33:23 GMT
In article <bryceDF8p2G.MHC@netcom.com>,
Bryce Harrington <bryce@netcom.com> wrote:
>AAT says that hominids became bipedal as a result of wading or swimming
>behavior. But what if the hominid was already at least partially bipedal
>when it became aquatic?
>
>I'm not an anthropologist, or anything close, but I am convinced that
>there are certain human traits (hairlessness and the nose, principly)
>which are very poorly explained (if at all) by other theories. What if
>the "biggie" adaptations occurred in non-aquatic environments, but many
>of the minor ones originated in the water?
This seems to me to be a very reasonable thought.
To extend it a bit. Suppose the human/ape common ancestors had some
degree of bipalism> It seems to me that the ancestors of apes may
have use tree climbing more as a means and defense and the human
ancestors used more the water refuge as a means of defense and the
divergence began.
One other factor that seems very supportive of AAT, is the
explanation of the long hair on the head along with the hairlessness
else where.
--
"The hammer shatters glass but forges steel." --Russian proverb
rfoy@netcom.com Weaving a World Wide Web
|