Re: Ardi is home and dry

Sapient Fridge <use_reply_address@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <6Zedncxtdam8nkPXnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Louann
Miller <louann_m@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Finally got around to finishing the Ardi documentary from several days ago.
I hadn't realized what a mosaic of modern bipedal hips/tree-climbing feet
she was. Have the Aquatic Ape usual suspects addressed this at all?

I'm still fairly open minded about the aquatic ape theory am not sure I
understand why this would put it to bed.

What would stop the human lineage becoming slightly water adapted
*after* developing bipedalism etc? There seems to be 4.5 million years
between us and Ardi so why couldn't there be a population of apes living
partially in water in between?

I'm not arguing from any kind of dogmatic viewpoint here, I am genuinely
interested in why the aquatic ape theory is considered falsified.

Well, what little evidence for it that has been produced is
very thin. And it is hard to prove this sort of negative.
But there is some evidence in that we don't see any of the
adaptations for aqueous living that we might expect, such
as migration of the nose as has occurred in other aquatic
mammals. And the mouth does not seem to be really adapted
to hunting in the water.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

.

Quantcast