Re: AAT Theory

David Howard (dbhoward@rain.org)
30 Aug 1995 07:26:30 GMT

In article <41t25i$1oq@kira.cc.uakron.edu>,
David L Burkhead <r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu> wrote:
>In article <41st3s$bdo@ttis.thomtech.com> Mike Reid <mreid@thomtech.com> writes:
>>Why is there such vehemence against the Aquatic Ape Theory?
>
> Also, unlike the proponents of plate tectonics, who _dealt with_
>and _resolved_ the complaints about continental drift as a theory, the
>AAH people have shown a remarkable lack of willingness to respond
>meaningfully to criticisms of AAH. We see the same straw men about
>"mainstream" theories again and again. We see tactics like
>complaining about hominids being "odd man out" as a savannah creature,
>but criticism about hominids being "odd man out" as an _aquatic_
>creature is ignored. When aquatic development is noted as a way for
>small, defensless proto-hominids to escape land predators, questions
>about how they dealt with _aquatic_ predators are ignored.

Forgive me for jumping into a conversation if i have insufficient
background, but since when is the theory the responsibility of the
founders? There has been a thread in the alt.talk.origins (i think)
forum regarding Darwin's deathbed rejection about Evolution. One of
points of that thread is that the theory does not depend upon the
founder. I do not know the details of the discussion with regard to the
points that you have made above, nor am I implying that the proponents of
the AAT are not doing a sufficient job of defending their theory; but,
"So what?" Would it matter if Newton had a change of heart about gravity?

>
> As a theory it makes no predictions, answers no questions (net
>anyway--at least as many questions are "raised" as "answered"), and
>is built on ad hoc assumptions--hardly the earmarks of a scientific
>theory.

The question has oft been raised if AAT would have greater adhearants if
hominid fossils were found in the Dinali (sp?) Alps or in an obvious
marine environment. I have heard no acceptance of this proposal. My
opinion is that the Savannah crowd has a distate for the flavour of their
own words. No, this would not prove anything conclusively, but it would
TEND TO FAVOUR AAT.

Additionally, what predictions have been made during the course of the
development of the mainstream Savannah theory? This is not a rheotorical
question, but stems from being a novice in the field. If this is a FAQ or
remedial statement, please point me in the appropriate direction and
address the previous statements without dwelling on this paragraph.

David

>
>David L. Burkhead
>r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
>76435.1332@compuserve.com
>d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com
>
>--
> Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine
>
> Box 831
> Akron, OH 44309-0831

-- 

**********************************************************************

*              http://www.rain.org/~dbhoward/howie.html              *

*                 David Howard     dbhoward@rain.org                 *  

* ********************************************************************