|
|
Re: Aquatic ape theory
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 05 Oct 95 22:27:07 GMT
In article <44ne82$5kt@kruuna.helsinki.fi>
ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI "Osmo Ronkanen" writes:
> 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.
Good point. I don't know what other AATer's think, but my own view
is that the "aquatic" phase lasted until very recently. Our ancestors
having established a viable lifestyle on the marine littoral, would
have continued to exploit it. Why should it change? It's an
evolutionary rule that successful forms persist.
Being aggressive and adaptable, they would have sought to exploit a
range of other habitats. They would have moved upstream and inland
and maybe used "tree-houses" at night - not easy. Islands on
crocodile-free lakes could have been exploited. Maybe they
eliminated crocodiles from other lakes by digging them out of their
winter holes. (Does anyone know if this is a possibility?)
Until they had fire, I cannot see any general solution to the problem
of nocturnal predation. What do you reckon your survival time and/or
breeding success rate would be if you were to spend every night, with
all your family, on the savannah without fire or other light, armed
only with clubs and spears?
OK, I know this is heresy. Flames anyone? (pun intended)
Paul.
|