Re: aat-reply to Moore.
Pat Dooley (patdooley@aol.com)
9 Jul 1995 00:06:54 -0400
Hollway writes:
>I repeat my assertion: those paleoanthropologists who have spent their
>lives on bipedal locomotion...not Pinker, not Calvin, not E.O. Wilson,
>not Dawkins, and I provided a very small list of thoise who do, have a
>very hard time taking AAT seriously. Sorry, but there it is. R. Holloway.
When your guys explain why full time bipedalism is unique to humans,
why no other primate occupying a similar range of habitats failed to
evolve
a similarly "advantageous" mode of locomotion, and how it evolved without
conferring fatal disadvantages on the intermediate forms between the
original mode and 100% bipedalism, I might take your argument from
authority
seriously.
But your guys don't tackle the evolutionary issues very well. Their
theories
remain as speculative as the AAT, fail to account for other human
anomalies,
and ignore too many evolutionary ideas.
I'll take Richard Dawkins any day, because he is a ranking authority on
the
central issue; evolution.
Pat Dooley
|