Re: AAT Theory
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Thu, 7 Sep 95 17:42:00 -0500
Sa> I am saying that the AAT includes an
Sa> explanation why there aren't any AAT fossils. I'll leave it to the
Sa> proponents of the AAT to explain the reasons. In general, I find them
Sa> plausible.
Sa> Daan Sandee sandee@think.com
Sa> Cambridge, MA 02142
You think they're plausible? Perhaps you'll explain why you find
them so. Let's look at these reasons:
First is that these purported aquatic hominids haven't been found
because they lived in a very limited area that hasn't been looked
at, because these highly effective aquatic mammals were marooned
on an island!
Please explain how that's plausible.
Then there's the contention that no differences would be seen that
would be recognised as aquatic. This in spite of the AAT's
contention that, during this time and due to aquatic living,
massive changes to our skeletons and other systems occurred. But
AATers insist that the only skeletal changes that occurred were
precisely those changes which can't be diffentiated from changes
you'd expect from a land-based transition. No others.
Please explain how that's plausible; rather than just suspicously
"convenient".
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *
|