Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is.

From: Ross Macfarlane (rmacfarl_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: 29 Jan 2005 16:23:33 -0800

Kaz wrote:
> "Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:9wDHd.4241$8u5.2566@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > range, or even the subset that leads to us. What it does say
however,
> > is so far there is substantively more in-situ evidence for
expanding
> > into savanah than into aquatic. It does not mean that humans were
> > strcitly savannah dwellers.
>
> And what is this in-situ evidence?

Carbon-13 isotopic analysis of the fossil teeth of Australopithecus
africanus, which indicates that they derived their food mainly from a
grassland environment. Try a Google search on Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp
- see for example:

http://www.crystalinks.com/earlyhumanoids4.html

"
Grasses and related plants known as sedges use a different form of
photosynthesis that is more likely to absorb carbon dioxide with the
heavier carbon-13. Thus, grasses and sedges contain more carbon-13
atoms than other plants. Animals that eat grasses and sedges likewise
have higher carbon-13 levels than those eating fruits and other plants.
What Sponheimer and Lee-Thorp found was that the teeth of A. africanus
had an in-between amount carbon-13 ? more than the fruit eaters,less
than the grass eaters. Which meant not only they're eating fruits,
they're eating a lot of grasses, or animals eating grasses. The lower
carbon-13 levels could also come from eating certain types of insects.
"
>
> > How can I make the ape theorist of this world understand. Science
> > is not about knowing, its about asking and waiting for answers.
>
> Hmmm...except that this isn't the impression one gets from the
scientific
> establishment. Consider the conclusive tone of the reactionaries
claiming
> the AAH is definitely false.

Most of those who are giving you a skeptical reaction around here
aren't knee-jerk reactionaries. We don't claim the AAH is definitely
false - there are any number of posts already in the SAP archive saying
that we don't a priori assume that it's wrong. It's the arguments put
forward by AAH supporters - arguments based on inadequate or downright
false evidence, faulty logic, and circular reasoning - that we take
issue with.

Or to put it another way:

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the best argument I've
yet seen for why the AAH must be wrong is the quality of the arguments
made by those who believe it is right...

Ross Macfarlane

Quantcast