Re: AAT Theory
Troy Kelley (tkelley@hel4.brl.mil)
Fri, 15 Sep 1995 22:52:00 GMT
Subject: Re: AAT Theory
From: J. Moore, j#d#.moore@canrem.com
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 18:50:00 -0500
In article <60.2727.7295.0N1F4265@canrem.com> J. Moore,
j#d#.moore@canrem.com
writes:
>I'm surprised to see you no longer on the AAT side, Troy -- why
>else would you be aching to provide the anti-AAT case of the polar
>bear. But you're right when you say that the case of the polar
>bear is indeed a grave challenge to the AAT. The challenge, of
>course, results from the fact that the polar bear seems not to have
>any of the changes the AAT insists are a natural and necessary
>consequence of aquatic life. No predominate bipedalism
Bipedalism a consequence of aquatic life? Mumm.. I don't remember saying
ever saying that one. I don't think that has ever even been implied
by AAT proponents.
AAT only claims that the transition to bipedalism could have been made
easier by an aquatic environment.
BTW, the polar bear is about as bipedal as many primates.
>straightening", the pattern of fat deposits is the same as
>terrestrial bears, no hairlessness, no descended larnyx, no
>ventral-ventral sex.
Ventral-ventral sex is also not a "consequence of aquatic life".
I am sure Hippopotamuses have sex in much the same way as a
polar bear.. in other words Hippos are aquatic and don't have
ventral-ventral sex.
>
>Yes, we can all agree with you that the "polar bear challenge" is
>a difficult problem for the proponents of the AAT, and one which
>they haven't addressed. I commend you for bringing it up; now
>are you going to address it?
Not sure what you mean by that Jim.
>Do give us the references which support this completely unsupported
>claim of yours. And do explain why the AAT is supposed to be
>given this special preferential "no refs required" status.
References to support streamlining?? Gee.. OK.. Just pick up any
book that has a picture of an ape or chimp and a picture of a human
being and tell me which one you think is more streamlined. I would
think that there are thousands of books that fall into this category.
> Fat pattern the same as terrestrial bears, etc.
Speaking of references ... Jim, do you have one for this claim?
>
>Now, when you crept away for the summer,
Yeah.. I actually have a real job, so I can't devote lots of time to
lengthy posts.
>information about incidents where land predators had killed
>hundreds of well-armed humans during a single night. The
>predators you mentioned were lions, cheetahs, leopards, tigers,
>hyenas and hunting dogs.
Jim.. there are plenty of stories of land based predators killing
armed individuals. I don't know about "hundreds during a single
night" but I am not sure what difference it makes. You would trying
to paint the crocodile as some kind of extraordinary predator when
in fact there are plenty of land based predators that are
equally as efficient at killing prey, if not more efficient.
>I hope you weren't just spouting BS.
Who... Me? BS.... NEVER.
>Well, if you were, perhaps you'd just explain how your purported
>aquatic ancestors survived while standing around in chest-deep
>crocodile-infested waters 4-8 hours a day. You never got around
>to that, either.
They probably controlled the local crocodile population by eating
their eggs. I have posted this idea before. The also probably
did not live in "infested" waters. Simple
Jim, just because there is an aquatic predator in Africa at the
same time the AAT is supposed to have happened does not discount
the entire theory. I think this is a weak argument. There
are predators everywhere.
>
>Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
>
Troy Kelley
|