Re: Holloway/Morgan
Alex Duncan (aduncan@mail.utexas.edu)
24 Jul 1995 16:08:06 GMT
In article <89823693wnr@desco.demon.co.uk> Elaine Morgan,
Elaine@desco.demon.co.uk writes:
>To say "We may never know" is not an answer. If you have A saying "I
>believe we will never know the answer", and B saying "I believe I know
>the answer", then the onus is on A to listen to B and disprove his
>hypothesis.
I think you are subjecting standard theory and AAT to different levels of
proof. I say we don't know for sure and may never know why the earliest
hominids abandoned a life in the trees and began living on the ground (or
at least spent more time on the ground). I am however, able to suggest a
number of possible advantages to bipedal locomotion, as well as
paleoenvironmental reconstructions that indicate that terrestial
adaptations may have been one response to the climatic crisis of the time.
You counter with your AAT, claiming that it answers all of the questions
we can't answer about the origin of human features. You neglect to
remember that the AAT has the same kinds of problems that standard theory
has. Well, let's assume you're right for the moment. Can you tell us,
absolutely positively WHY your protohominids started spending time in the
water in the first place? Can you tell us (absolutely, positively) WHY
your protohominids became BIPEDAL as an adaptation to living in the
water, rather than merely enhancing their already existent quadrupedal
adaptations. Unless you have a positive answer to this question, then it
is somewhat dishonest to criticize the standard theory for not answering
the question of why protohominids started spending more time on the
ground and adopted a unique mode of locomotion.
And no, a list of potential advantages does not constitute proof. I WANT
TO KNOW ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WHY!!!
Alex Duncan
Dept. of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1086
512-471-4206
aduncan@mail.utexas.edu
|