Re: Aquatic ape theory

J. Moore (
Sun, 24 Sep 95 18:37:00 -0500

Br> In article <43sov3$>,
Br> Phillip Bigelow <> wrote:
Br> > (Bryce Harrington) writes:
Br> >
Br> >>What if the hominid was already at least partially bipedal
Br> >>when it became aquatic?

Br> >That is a convenient way of keeping a theory alive.

Br> Not at all. I've been lurking in this newsgroup for several years now
Br> and never have I seen the theory so alive and so heavily discussed.
Br> Well over half the posts in this group revolve around AAT.

If you've lurked in other sci newsgroups dealing with anthro and
arecheology, you're aware that most of their posts revolve around
Velikovsky, racist nonsense, Celts in ancient New Mexico, and
other such BS. An active level of posting is unfortunately a poor
indicator of the usefulness or truthfulness of a theory.

Br> > Keep in mind that if you put the origin of bipedalism back in the
Br> >terrestrial environment,then you are weakening your case for the less
Br> >well known traits, (such as sweating and hair loss) being
Br> >aquaticly-created, too.

Br> *My* case? I find it funny that you, Phil, and Jim clump everyone who
Br> mentions AAT in a positive way into some nebulous AAT fan group and
Br> assume that they all are working to prove the same theory, and then you
Br> get all up in arms when Elaine groups her opposition into the "Savannah-
Br> ists." I've noticed that everyone, "AATers" and "Savannah-ists" (or
Br> "Mosaic-ists") alike, have different opinions on what "the theory"
Br> really is.

What is *your* AAT, then?

Br> But these things are not *part* of the theory, in that the
Br> theory does not depend on these parts to validate itself.

What *are* parts of the theory then?

Br> separately and thoroughly. Perhaps bipedalism is not an aquatic derived
Br> trait. So what? That doesn't mean that hair loss could not still be an
Br> aquatic adaption. Less probable, perhaps, but not impossible.
Br> Bryce Harrington

Since you're complaining that we aren't addressing your theory
(while avoiding mentioning just what your theory is), why don't
you put it forward and provide some support for the features you
think are due to an aquatic past. Just list them, perhaps, and do
give the reasons for their appearance in hominids. Also please
address the central problem of predators in the aquatic

Jim Moore (

* Q-Blue 2.0 *