|
|
Re: aquatic humans...
Phil Nicholls (pn8886@csc.albany.edu)
24 Jan 1995 14:06:19 GMT
In article <3g23fs$nth@panix.com>, John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Then I should probably go to s.a.paleo, but as long as I'm here, I
>wonder if anyone can tell me whether there exists any particularly
>damning counterargument to the Aquatic Ape theory, some major flaw in
>the theory, or is it simply dismissed for lack of fossil evidence. In
>other words, is the theory generally considered by workers in the field
>to be reasonable but unsupported speculation, or is it considered
>demonstrably wrong? All I know about the theory comes from Elaine
>Morgan's books, and she certainly makes it seem reasonable.
>--
>John Brock
>jbrock@panix.com
I am one of the leading anti-AAH posters on s.a.p. and I have pointed
out that how reasonable the AAH sounds really depends on how much
anatomy and physiology you know going in. I can tell you that it is
not seriously discussed in physical anthropology circles and suggest
you read sci.anthropology.paleo for more information.
--
Philip "Chris" Nicholls Department of Anthropology
Institute for Hydrohominoid Studies SUNY Albany
University of Ediacara pn8886@cnsunix.albany.edu
"Semper Alouatta"
|