Re: Aquatic ape theory

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Peter/Stephen Sjolander : "Re: American Indians skin tone and the Vikings"
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: A Specification for a"

r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) wrote:

>> I don't have the dates to hand (and I'm sure
>someone will correct me if I'm wrong) but doesn't 1.5 mya put you into
>genus homo (habilus or erectus)? It's certainly into the later
>australopithecines. Since these species were _not_ aquatic apes, then
>a version of AAH which says they are must be discarded.
>

I'm personally quite happy with the idea of our ancestors having a
semi-aquatic existence until even as late as 200,000 years ago or even
later. The initial marine phase was presumably pre-australopithecine, but
I reckon that later species were swimming and diving in fresh-water lakes
and rivers further inland. Is there any reason not to believe that this
is at least possible? If you want to be pedantic anyone who has a bath
regularly is a semi-aquatic ape!

James Borrett.

• Next message: Peter/Stephen Sjolander : "Re: American Indians skin tone and the Vikings"
• Previous message: Paul Crowley: "Re: A Specification for a"