Re: AAT is dogma
Phil Nicholls (pnich@globalone.net)
Sun, 13 Aug 1995 02:58:14 GMT
clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) wrote:
>In article <4091cv$ihr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> alex duncan
><aduncan@mail.utexas.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.
Let's say that skeletal sequence was complete. None of the AAH
arguments offer any predictions about changes in hard tissue anatomy,
despite the fact that aquatic lifestyles cause very specific changes
in the skeletons of other mammals. Hominids lack any reduction in
the size or robusticity of the limbs, the lack any indication of
having had a fusiform body shape, there are no changes in musculature
that would indicate an adaptation to swimming.
Rather selective convergence if you ask me.
>Actually, I think the fact that many AAT proponents PREDICT where
>the missing fossils will be found is a strong point of the theory.
>Look in the Danakil Alps and other areas in the Afar triangle that
>were isolated islands 4-7 MY ago.
And let's suppose you found hominids in these locations. So what?
Where is the evidence that they were aquatic?
>Last night I was mowing my patch of savannah, dodging the trees making
>up my bit of forest, thinking if the AAT were not true, why
>do I go the trouble and expense to have a pool, my own private
>body of water.
>Tom Clarke
I think this reflects socioeconomic evolution rather than biological
evolution. Is this your way of inviting s.a.p. folks over for a pool
party?
Philip "Chris" Nicholls
Director, Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies
University of Ediacara
"Semper Allouata!!!"
|