Re: The Aquatic Adaptation of the Human Ear
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
7 Oct 1995 20:55:41 -0400
David Froehlich <eohippus@curly.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>No!!! Mammals are evolved from fully terrestrial synapsids which wear
>evolved from fully terrestrial amniotes which were evolved from largely
Just for the sake of argument, how can you tell if a 50 My old
partial skeleton is "fully terrestrial". I can imagine how one
can tell if it flew, or even if it was arboreal. The tell tale sign
for wings would not be difficult to spot, and the infamous
arboreal foot would probably not have too many objectors.
How about fully terrestrial vs partially terrestrial or
partially aquatic. In the case of flightless birds it's not
difficult to see agreement on the evidence of wings that are
too small.
how about semi-aquatic. Is there a dorsal fin too short, or
a fingers too long, or too short etc etc.
>admit crustaceans and shellfish are a possibility) but a largely
>shellfish diet can be identified by stable isotope ratios (they have done
>it for indians in North America) and nobody has ever noted such stable
>isotope ratios. (This latest is still being conducted and I do not know
>if there are any results from hominids, but it should be possible).
Well then it's falsifiable ( to some degree). If some kind
of a humanoid can be found which fed mainly on shellfish
it would start new arguments about where in the tree this
new hominid fit. At least it would provide more support for AAT.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|