From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Jul 20 2002 - 08:51:11 MDT
Kevin Bluck <kevin.bluck@mail.com> wrote:
<I've seen this page, and similar arguments against AAT.>>
I hope you found it as fascinating as I did.
<<A major class or argument is of the general form, "If humans evolved in
water, why aren't we more <<whatever>>?" One of Morgan's books has a title
page with a quote. It says something like (from memory, sorry): "Critics
say that if AAT it true, then why aren't humans more streamlined? My
response is, 'more streamlined than what?'" This is next to a photograph
juxtaposing a chimpanzee next to a human swimmer diving into the water.>>
Actually the major classes of arguements *I* saw were...
1. Why don't the exponents of AAT follow reasonable standards in
referencing
scources?
That and of course good solid poking of holes in the logic.
<Another good example is the question, "Why aren't we faster swimmers? We'd
be eaten by sharks and crocodiles." Well, you can make the same argument on
land. "Why aren't we faster runners? We'd be eaten by lions and tigers."
Humans may not be dolphins, but we sure do kick all other primate bootie in
the field of swimming. So, again, the operative question is, "faster
swimmers than what?">>
Actually the predation question was the clincher in my view. Once you
have seen chimpanzees ganging up on a feline with stones it's not hard
to see how a savannah/scrubland could be rather more inviting than
a jungle or wetlands/coastal shallows.
You simply can't gang up on a crocodile with stones if you are in 4 feet
of water (or even 1 ft). This is a beautiful picture. At least a lion can't
"death roll" your ass into the earth itself, making it a waiting game till
you
suffocate. Crocs are bad news... Shallows are DANGEROUS places
in tropical africa.
20 protohumans + 1 large mama crocodile + 2 ft. of murky water = 1 happy
croc.
20 protohumans + 1 large lioness + open area with great visibility and
plenty
of rocks and large sticks = lion for supper to suppliment the roots and
berries.
Sharks I would risk, you can survive a shark attack, they are "turf"
animals,
will take a chunk out and swim on. Crocs *like* monkey for supper.
<While I certainly agree AAT is not "bulletproof", I *do* think it is much
more "holistic" than the other explanations available. Land-based
explanations make humans *different* than every other land species, and
strive to explain away feature after feature that is just not found in the
land animal catalog. On the other hand, all these "strange" features that
make the human species so unusual are found in a variety of animals with a
watery past or present. Sure, one or two oddities can be explained away,
but how many features that any zoologist would associate with a water-based
mammal in any other species but man do you need?
- --- Kevin>
I think AAT is more "holistic" also (though not it a good way). I *like*
the AAT notion of humans as water based primates. But quite apart
the issues of evidence presentation from it's proponents is the
predation issues. That clinches it for me... until something better comes
along.
regards,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:36 MST