Re: AAT Theory
chris brochu (gator@mail.utexas.edu)
26 Sep 1995 14:18:23 GMT
In article <446dla$gfq@news.cc.ucf.edu> Thomas Clarke,
clarke@acme.ist.ucf.edu writes:
>> The parsimony argument I was making had more to do with habitat than
>> habit - tree to land vs. tree to water to land. The "water" stage is not
>> preserved, and I see nothing in extant hominoids to suggest its presence.
>
>How about behavior? I think humans are the only primates that swim.
>
Agreed, behavior should be included in our analysis. But the most
parsimonious explanation for our evolution is still not the AAT, with or
without it. That's how parsimony works - you take all available evidence
and select the explanation that best fits all of it.
Some postings on this subject seem to suggest a thought process like,
"well, your idea may explain facts A through Y, but since my idea
explains Z better, mine must be correct." That's not parsimony. That's
special pleading.
I'd highly recommend Brooks and McLennan's _Phylogeny, Ecology, and
Behavior_ as an introduction to how evolutionary scenarios are currently
reconstructed.
chris
ps - the subcutaneous fat I see is on both the musculature and skin,
aquatic or not.
|