Re: AAT Questions...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: AAT Questions..."
• Previous message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: Laetoli"
• Maybe in reply to: Sir CPU: "AAT Questions..."
• Next in thread: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: AAT Questions..."

I've been following the AAH discussions at S.A.P for the last couple of
months. Here are a couple of points which I don't think have been
mentioned:

1. If the Littoral environment was such a paradise for the
newly-aquatic ape (abundant food, escape from predators etc.), then
natural selection would not weeded out many individuals, and hence
evolution would have been at a snail's pace, few changes would have
occured in the population and a near-human would not have evolved.

2. An aquatic near-human population which thrived on the seashore
would not have set off inland just because inland had become a
tolerable place to live once more. A disincentive for staying put
would have to have made being a beach bum such a drag that it was worth
venturing into the unknown. Species do not, as far as I know, radiate
into unfilled ecological niches unless their own niche is under threat
(someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

--

David Chan

• Next message: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: AAT Questions..."
• Previous message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: Laetoli"
• Maybe in reply to: Sir CPU: "AAT Questions..."
• Next in thread: Ralph L Holloway: "Re: AAT Questions..."