Re: AAT Theory
chris brochu (gator@mail.utexas.edu)
6 Oct 1995 17:37:18 GMT
In article <453n59$7o5@news.cc.ucf.edu> Thomas Clarke,
clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu writes:
>for the AAT. You concentrate on the failed aquatic characteristics and
>reject the theory. Well fossils will tell eventually.
>
>If I apply the same viewpoint to the "land theory", one would expect
>a hominid to display characteristics of other savannah dwelling
>animals. As near as I can tell, hominds are unique among savannah
>animals. Hence, to me, the "land theory" is disproven.
Sounds like you completely missed my point. I reject AAS not only
because there is no evidence for it, but because the scenario proposed by
primate phylogeny requires nothing like it.
Furthermore, I never said we became bipedal on the savannah. I suggested
something more like a forested environment.
For a good model, take a look at macropodids. The earliest relatives of
bettongs, wallabies, and kangaroos were forest animals that became
bipedal, probably to jump over obstacles. When the forests went away,
they stayed bipedal. (And no, before you flame, I'm not proposing a
saltatorial phase in our evolution. Only pointing out that we aren't the
only bipedal open-ground creatures, and that the evolution of bipedality
in macropodids might be a worthwhile analogy.)
chris
|