Re: Aquatic ape theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David L Burkhead : "Re: AAT Theory"
• Previous message: Clara N. Fitzgerald: "Re: AAT Theory"

In article <hubey.812270041@pegasus.montclair.edu>,
H. M. Hubey <hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
>
>But nobody really said that anything more than erect bipedal
>posture and loss of body hair (and maybe a few other little
>things) was really what the aquatic life style brought.

If the aquatic life bought bipedalism, then it must have happened some
4-5 million years ago. If it also caused the loss of body hair, then why
did the body hair not return when the aquatic life was over? If the body
hair would have been beneficial for living in land, it should have
returned. If it was harmful, then one needs no AAT to explain the loss.
I cannot think how having the hair or lack of it could have been so
irrelevant that millions of years of evolution did not change it.

Osmo

• Next message: David L Burkhead : "Re: AAT Theory"
• Previous message: Clara N. Fitzgerald: "Re: AAT Theory"