Re: AAT Theory
David Froehlich (eohippus@moe.cc.utexas.edu)
Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:34:04 -0500
On 20 Oct 1995 jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk wrote:
> chris brochu <gator@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Why is an aquatic phase needed?
>
> This is why the AAT feels so much resistence. You have explanations for most of the features of
> the human body, you don't need new aquatic ones. It doesn't really matter what the truth is as
> long as we have an explanation.
>
Truth? Do you have knowledge of the truth that you are not sharing with
us? Do you have a time machine somewhere? AAS is resisted because it
posits an unparsimonious explanation for a series of features in humans.
The scenario seeks to explain observations such as subdermal fat, diving
reflex, bipedality etc. However, to do so it must explain the
observations better than other observations (the reason behind setting up
a strawman savannah model). The contention of most anti AAS posters is
that the AAS provides a more complex scenario to explain the same
information that a less complex set of scenarios (the multiple
savannah-mosaic scenarios) does (and IMO does a better job).
What your multiple posts suggest to me is that you are after truth.
Truth is never going to be demonstrated in a scientific context. If you
want truth then try philosophy or religion. These endevours speak to
truth while science attempts to find the most likely or most parsimonious
explanation for a series of observations. The basic question you need to
ask yourself is how we would recognize "truth" if it came up to us and
slapped us in the face.
Ask yourself how you would know AAS is wrong (and don't repeat the BS
about the fossil record, argue from the data we do have rather than the
data we wished we had).
David J. Froehlich Phone: 512-471-6088
Vertebrate Paleontology Laboratory Fax: 512-471-5973
J.J. Pickle Research Campus
The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
|