Re: AAT is dogma

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: AAT Questions..."
• Previous message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: SOFT (really soft) spots"
• Maybe in reply to: alex duncan: "AAT is dogma"
• Next in thread: Steven Fisher: "Re: AAT is dogma"

Pn> a fusiform body shape, there are no changes in musculature that would
Pn> indicate an adaptation to swimming.

Pn> Rather selective convergence if you ask me.

Sure is... and that's only part of the selectivity of this
purported convergence, none of which seems to stir AATers to cover
this gaping hole in their theory.

Pn> >Actually, I think the fact that many AAT proponents PREDICT where
Pn> >the missing fossils will be found is a strong point of the theory.
Pn> >Look in the Danakil Alps and other areas in the Afar triangle that
Pn> >were isolated islands 4-7 MY ago.
Pn> >Tom Clarke

Pn> And let's suppose you found hominids in these locations. So what?
Pn> Where is the evidence that they were aquatic?
Pn> Philip "Chris" Nicholls

BTW, has anyone besides me considered the absolute ludicrousness
of purported transitional hominids which were supposedly highly
adapted to aquatic life, including extensive swimming and diving
abilities, being "marooned" or "cut off" on AN ISLAND?!?

Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)

* Q-Blue 2.0 *

• Next message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: AAT Questions..."
• Previous message: HARRY R. ERWIN: "Re: SOFT (really soft) spots"
• Maybe in reply to: alex duncan: "AAT is dogma"
• Next in thread: Steven Fisher: "Re: AAT is dogma"