Re: Aquatic ape theory
Osmo Ronkanen (ronkanen@cc.Helsinki.FI)
7 Oct 1995 01:32:34 +0200
In article <812932027snz@crowleyp.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Crowley <Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
How recently? Was homo erectus an aquatic ape? Did it swim out of
Africa?
> 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.
>
Then why are people not aquatic apes now?
>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?)
>
Or maybe they gave them Pepsi Max to drink.
>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.
Osmo
|