|
|
Re: AAT Theory
Barry Mennen (barrym2@ix.netcom.com)
28 Aug 1995 20:28:32 GMT
In <41st3s$bdo@ttis.thomtech.com> Mike Reid <mreid@thomtech.com>
writes:
>
>Why is there such vehemence against the Aquatic Ape Theory?
>It's true that it's far out and lacks strong fossil evidence to
>support it, but that does not mean that it's wrong! In the early
years
>of this century, Wegner proposed the idea of continental drift based
>solely on his observation that the Earth's continents, if rearranged,
>could fit together like a jig-saw puzzle. This was purely
>circumstantial evidence. Most Earth scientists of that time dismissed
>his idea as foolish and far out. It was not until the 1960's when
>seafloor spreading was discovered that Wegner's idea was born out.
>Today, scarcely anyone doubts the truth of continental drift. Until
>more fossil evidence is discovered, I doubt that it will be possible
>to either prove or disprove the AAT. Until such time, why can't more
>"mainstream" scientists at least view it as a plausible theory
>worthy of respect, whether they agree with it or not? Remember the
>lessons learned by those mainstream scientists who originally
>ridiculed the idea of continental drift.
>
>Mike Reid
>
>
..and one does not have to go back almost 100 years to show how wrong
the stones and bones folks could be--remember when the Berkeley group
came up with the molecular clock in the late '60s to show that the
putative 17 myr ago split between ape and homonid lines was really
closer to 5-7 myr? It seems to me that the academics who post here
could be a bit more humble when dealing with the AAT and Elaine Morgan.
They appear to take the AAT as a personal attack upon them--sheesh!
|