Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
2 Oct 1995 05:35:37 -0400

David Froehlich <eohippus@curly.cc.utexas.edu> writes:

>I would actually agree with you. They are called fishes. However, the
>last common ancestor of all mammals was certainly a fully terrestrial
>amniote tetrapod.

I guess the evidence goes something like this: here we have these
bones which look like these bones from a later time period, and
which look like these bones, and ..... so therefore these must
have been the evolution of the same species... and so on..

I think I get the general idea. There doesn't seem to be
much to misunderstand.

However the mathematical precision and certainty with some
statements are made is a bit much...

>to become aquatic, much longer than the available gap. AAS gets around
>this fact by producing fuzzy and untestable statements about how any
>changes would be indistinguishable from terrestrially derived
>bipedalism.

And of course, the mainstream theories have "testable" rock-solid
"proof"!

What is proof?

>noticed that most of the pro AAS folks are not professional physical
>anthropologists?

I never asked anyone if they were anthropologists. I'm not one.
And I don't care much. IF there is some magic tricks that
professional anthropologists have up their sleeves they must
be keeping them all secret. All I can see is that they are
still bone eye-balling. And I use this phrase on purpose.
It's not a good idea to try to run before learning to walk.
WE are all aware of the immense difficulty and complexity of
the subject matter and that it's mostly in the verbal stage
because of it.

>aquatic phase. Otters and bears do not grasp like we do. Primates have
>an apposable thumb, carnivores have the pollex bound with the other

YEs, I think I remember reading something like this in high
school around 1965-66 :-).

>Duane Gish and ilk. Pro AAS tends to argue from an unasailable premise
>that is by its very nature untestable and then throw the fuzzy science
>epithet around at anybody who does not agree (I admit I am also at fault
>for this).

What part of anthropology is testable?

Would anyone care to make some predictions?

-- 





				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey