Re: AAT is dogma

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: AAT is dogma"
• Previous message: J. Moore: "Re: AAT Questions..."
• Maybe in reply to: alex duncan: "AAT is dogma"
• Next in thread: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: AAT is dogma"

In article <40fp9e$3rm@news.cc.ucf.edu> Thomas Clarke,
clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu writes:

>> And so, a question for proponents of the AAT: what would it take to
>> falsify your hypothesis?
>
>A reasonably complete fossil record extending from proto-ape
>to Lucy would do nicely.

You may claim this would do nicely, but that is not what Ms. Morgan says.
She indicates that the AAT prediction for the postcranial skeleton of A.
ramidus does not differ from the predictions I or any other
paleoanthropologist might make based upon our expectations from an
arboreal/terrestrial model. You may see the issues a little more clearly
than Ms. Morgan does. Perhaps you could clarify exactly how a complete
fossil record is going to falsify the AAT.

Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086
512-471-4206
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu

• Next message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: AAT is dogma"
• Previous message: J. Moore: "Re: AAT Questions..."
• Maybe in reply to: alex duncan: "AAT is dogma"
• Next in thread: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: AAT is dogma"