Re: AAT Theory

H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
4 Sep 1995 17:51:50 -0400

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

>Mike Reid <mreid@thomtech.com> writes:

>MR> Why is there such vehemence against the Aquatic Ape Theory?
>MR> It's true that it's far out and lacks strong fossil evidence to
>MR> support it, but that does not mean that it's wrong!

>It doesn't lack "strong fossil evidence"; it lacks *any* fossil
>evidence.

What would be considered fossil evidence *for* AAT?

What would be considered fossil evidence *against* AAT?

In fact, it has been specifically stated online by
>Elaine Morgan that she considers no fossil evidence, no matter
>what it is, can possibly ever disprove the AAT, which essentially

She's right.

What is "proof"? Let's start with fundamentals.

How does one go about proving that AAT is incorrect?

>of aquatic living. Paleoanthropology has also always suggested
>that hominids evolved from an hominoid ancestor, but rejects the
>mechanism of an aquatic past (well, except for the aquatic past all
>life on earth shares).

What fossil evidence exists for the view that the
"mechanism of an aquatic past" should be rejected?

What fossil evidence could "prove" that AAT is wrong?

-- 



Regards, Mark



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