Re: First Family and AAT
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
13 Oct 1995 16:41:33 -0400
j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) writes:
>So since AATers apparently believe that a terrestrial transition
>for humans means that many many open-country mammals should be
"Apparently" isn't probably the right word. I think you
know very well that they are talking about animals that
were already able to grasp and use their hands to some
degree. So the question is germane; why if they are already
able to grasp and on their way to making tools and ready
to stand up and be counted, why then don't they all stand up
and become bipedal. And all this despite the SST'ers and MST'ers
shooting themselves in the foot(!) by telling everyone that
chimps spend 90% of their time on the ground and not in the
trees. Is this a recent phenomena which is supposed to lead
to bipedal chimps or using analogical reasoning would you say
that chimps have been doing this for a long time?
The question is like "have you stopped beating your wife ?"
They spend 90% of their time on the ground; i.e. this must
already be 90%-100% Mosaic Savannah Theory. That is their
environment, isn't it?
You have to duck the question :-)
>predominately bipedal, and that the fact that they aren't is a
>grevious blow to all of paleoanthropolical theory, why shouldn't
>they answer the question of why aquatic mammals aren't
>predominately bipedal?
Say what? Nobody said that quadripeds went into water and
became human. Besides, using hands and grasping is just as good
if not better in water than in trees or ground. If an animal
is to use its hands (front legs/paws) for grasping it's more
of a burden for it to support itself in the trees than it
is to do it on the ground; and it's even easier in water.
Again, sea otters, and polar bears. And it's probably no
accident that bears seem for some strange reason to be more
bipedal than cats and dogs.
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|