Re: AAT Questions...
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Sun, 6 Aug 95 18:39:00 -0500
BOB> I want to add that although Elaine Morgan is carrying the ball for AAT
BOB> don't assume that she is
BOB> alone.There are a lot us out here who understand most of what she says
BOB> and who aren't afraid of knew ideas.
Thank god. Maybe YOU can answer the AAT questions then. No one
has done so yet; the only attempts have been extremely thin and ad
hoc. Here's some of the new ones:
According to the AAT, the power of convergent evolution produced
massive changes to our body structure and systems in very little
time, producing, among other things, a salt excretion system like
those seen in crocodiles and sea birds, rather than the one used
by marine mammals. Given that the AAT claims convergent evolution had
the power to produce these massive changes in such a little time,
these questions come to mind:
7. Humans have young that are born less developed than our relatives,
and they develop more slowly as well. Aquatic mammals have young
that are quite advanced compared to similar terrestrial mammals (for
example, seals as opposed to land-based carnivores), or which grow
very quickly, or both. Why did the purported aquatic hominids
change in the opposite direction from other aquatic mammals?
8. Aquatic mammals have shorter legs, or no legs, relative to land-based
animals. Early hominids had legs similar in length to our relatives.
According to the AAT, there was enormous selection pressures that
produced massive changes to our skeletons for an aquatic life, and
according to the AAT, this was due to convergent evolution. Why
were our legs (like our ears, apparently) exempt from the power of
convergent evolution?
And there's these golden oldies:
5. The AAT says we did not evolve on land because some of our
adaptations, such as our method of thermoregulation, are
different from the methods used by other distantly-related-to-us
mammals in that habitat, such as "the wild ass and the camel".
Instead we supposedly evolved in saltwater and therefore adapted
in the same manner as aquatic animals, with the power of convergent
evolution supposedly evolving a salt excretion system like that seen
in sea birds and crocodiles. Why didn't we adapt by using changing
our pre-adapted kidneys, which are the regulated salt excretion
system used by all mammals, in the same manner as marine mammals:
evolving extremely large and/or extremely lobulated kidneys, as
has repeatedly happened, due to convergent/parallel evolution, in
cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea otters?
6. If the apparent vitamin A poisoning seen in the *Homo erectus*
specimen KNM-1808 was from eating fish, rather than carnivore
liver, and was, as Morgan suggests, because we had been doing so
since the transition from apes, why hadn't we either:
A) developed a resistance to such toxic reactions to a food which
supposedly had been eaten regularly for approximately 4-6 million
years before that time?
B) learned how to avoid toxic poisoning from a supposedly common
food?
C) if we had such a resistance and had kept those habits, as Morgan
suggests, why did we lose the adaptation?
Well, thank god Bob isn't afraid of "knew ideas" and has arrived
to answer these simple (but apparently not simple enough for other
AATers) questions!
And while you're answering, Bob, maybe you'll be so good as to
explain how your purported aquatic ancestors managed to survive
while standing around in crocodile-infested water 4-8 hours a day.
Thanks for your help, Bob!
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *
|