Re: Aquatic ape theory
Sean Stinson (sstinson@uoguelph.ca)
27 Sep 1995 02:30:53 GMT
chris brochu (gator@mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <449ovn$5la@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca> Sean Stinson,
: sstinson@uoguelph.ca writes:
: S>PS-Many modern cultures live in close proximity to "croc" pops.
: S>and yet are surviving just fine.
: C>True, like Australia - where they post warning signs next to bodies of
: C>water frequented by large salties. In other words, they survive just
: C>fine by staying away from them.
S> So have the aboriginals, who, as far as I'm aware of, have never
posted any signs. As do many african cultures, who also, do not
post signs at their water holes. I will concede that many lives may
have been taken by aquitic, and possibly terrestrial, predators, during
the evolutionary development of the species which ultimately lead
to modern humans. However the presence of any number of voracious predators
does not refute the theory. It is possible to propose as many
hypothetical methods of dealing with predators, as their are predators.
This does not bring us closer to a working model of ATT.
So....
1) I will concede there were vicious predators that
decimated the numbers of "early humans" living in
the aquitic environment.
If....
2) You will concede that sufficient numbers survived
to continue their species.
All of which is reasonable to assume from the models of
predator-prey demographics.
*=predator
+=prey
# of |
individuals |
in population|
| + * + *
|+ +* * + *+ *
| * + * + * + *
| * + * + * + *
| * + * + * + *
|* + +* * + *
| + *
|_____________________________________________________
Time----------->
|