|
|
Re: Aquatic ape theory
Phillip Bigelow (n8010095@cc.wwu.edu)
21 Sep 1995 15:28:51 -0700
bryce@netcom.com (Bryce Harrington) writes:
> 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?
In other words, we should accept a terrestrial origin for traits that we
have a better understanding of,and relegate to the AAT those obscure traits that
presently are poorly understood? That is a convenient way of
keeping a theory alive. It is analogous to admitting to a 5 year-old that
Santa Claus doesn't exist, but still maintaining that his reindeer do exist
and are still flying around.
Keep in mind that if you put the origin of bipedalism back in the
terrestrial environment,then you are weakening your case for the less well known
traits, (such as sweating and hair loss) being aquaticly-created, too. The
case is weakened *because* we know so little about the biology of sweating
and hair loss. And, as Elaine Morgan, herself, has written, (ref.: "The
Aquatic Ape") the evidence should be examined *as a group*, rather than
as individual traits.
By throwing out your bipedalism argument, all the other evidence takes a
hit, too. Because of this, I doubt that Morgan and her supporters are going
to readily jettison bipedalism-as-evidence any time soon.
whole-istically yours,
<pb>
|