Re: Aquatic ape theory

Phil Nicholls (
Tue, 26 Sep 1995 02:26:42 GMT (Bryce Harrington) graced us with the following

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

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

>Not at all. I've been lurking in this newsgroup for several years now
>and never have I seen the theory so alive and so heavily discussed.
>Well over half the posts in this group revolve around AAT. I'm simply
>trying to provide an alternative idea. I don't care who is "winning"
>or who's case is "strongest." I just want to find out what the truth
>really is.

The truth, Bryce, is that we will never know what "the truth" is (or
was) and that the best we can do is to propose explanations that fit
the existing facts and which can provide some predictions that can be
tested as the fossil record gives us more information. What I
dislike about the AAH is that it is just one or example of an
untestable hypothesis about human evolution. Elaine is not doing
anything professional paleoanthropologists haven't been doing in this
regard, it's lust that in my opinion you need to toss all of these
ideas out OR recognize that you are merely engaging in "just so"

One current hypothesis is that hominids were scavanging on the
savannah. This hypothesis was tested by examining bones with an
electronmicroscope and it appears likely that in some cases cutmarks
made by stone tools were made after the toothmarks of predators.

Wheeler's hypothesis about heat rejection was also tested.

What I would like to see is more of this kind of hypothesis forming
and testing and less of the "what if" kind of story telling.

Phil Nicholls
"To ask a question you must first know most of the answer"
-Robert Sheckley