AAT a bust

James H. Sammons III (jsammons@liberty.uc.wlu.edu)
Sun, 24 Sep 1995 03:57:04 GMT

I'm no expert but I don't see how one can believe that the same traits
would have evolved for either aquatic or land apes. For one thing look at
the feet! The argument is almost the same as the one Robert Bakker used
to show that the hadrosaur dinosaurs were not aquatic, and holds just as
much credibility in my opinion. First, look at ape feet. They are wider
and the toes are longer, relatively, than ours. Why would aquatic apes
have evolved more compact narrow feet if they were supposedly using them
to swim. As far as the toes are concerned, our toes are shorter and
closer together in relation to our bodies than those of apes. The logical
tendency would be to web the long, more spreadable toes. The apes in question
however developed stubby toes that were packed like sardines. If one were
to take a duck's feet and tie the toes together to prevent spreading the
duck would not swim as well, but that seems to be the cource the aquatic
apes took; why? Why would aquatic creatures evolve in the wrong direction?
A simple change in the ammount of flesh would have made our ancestors
superb swimmers, but Rearranging the bones to a less effective
arrangement makes no sense at all.
I'm not convinced. Should evidence arise that shows an adaptation
to aquatoc locomotion I would reconsider; however no such evidence exists.