Re: Alex's point... was Re: First Family and AAT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Crocodile Rock"
• Previous message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Aquatic predators... was Re: AAT Theory"
• Maybe in reply to: J. Moore: "Alex's point... was Re: First Family and AAT"
• Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Alex's point... was Re: First Family and AAT"

j#d#.moore@canrem.com (J. Moore) writes:

>That being predominately bipedal is useful does not mean that all
>organisms will take it up.

Naturally not. But there was a point at which the same species
time-line in the space of characteristics (i.e. DNA, chromosomes,
form, etc) bifurcated. The evolutionary line split. One group
evolved in another direction and the other didn't.

There had to be a reason. The "niche" that forced one to change
according to SST/MST is that they left the forest for the
grasslands. AAT says that there was some water nearby and they
took advantage of it for a while.

If the MST people claim that they changed in the forest or
woodlands or "wooded savannah" they have to explain why the
others didn't.

Tom Clarke's comments are correct and his question still hasn't
been answered directly.

-- 



				Regards, Mark

				http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey

• Next message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Crocodile Rock"
• Previous message: H. M. Hubey: "Re: Aquatic predators... was Re: AAT Theory"
• Maybe in reply to: J. Moore: "Alex's point... was Re: First Family and AAT"
• Next in thread: Thomas Clarke: "Re: Alex's point... was Re: First Family and AAT"