Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- From: "Marc Verhaegen" <fa204466@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:10:40 +0200
from AAT:
> >I wouldn't know why we would obscure discussions by introducing new terms
like AA*H*. I never speak about AA*H* and I don't see any reason why I
should: AAT is no hypothesis, it's a theory, as certain as say continental
drift.
>Pauline: I don't think it matters whether it is called AAT or AAH, but I
think 'hypothesis' is perhaps less aggressive than 'theory' to outsiders.
Elaine used 'AAH' in her last book, so I'm happy to go with that, but it
really isn't important.
If Algis keeps using AAH, I can use AAT... :-) Elaine used "hypothesis"
instead of "theory" in an attempt to capture the PAs' "benevolentia", but
unfortunately this lead to nowhere.
> > But that is not what AAT is about: AAT is about what makes humans Homo
different from chimps Pan, and as Hardy argued 45 years ago: it's about our
ancestors having been littoral some time after the H/P split. It has
nothing to do with apiths:
> No one knows definitively how apiths are related to chimps and humans.
They may well not be ancestral to either, but they are still close cousins.
They very likely were aquatic to some degree. That brings them into most
people's definition of AAT.
Well, that's one of the reasons why we don't progress IMO: apiths have
*nothing* more than chimps that suggest they might have had waterside
features: no ext.nose, no very large brain, no masticatory reduction, but
curved phalanges, etc. As long as we keep apiths in, PAs have good reasons
to question this "AAT".
> As to our ancestors being littoral from an early date
?? Did I say that, Pauline? No doubt the HP-LCA was aquarboreal, possibly
in coastal forests, but this is very different from "littoral"! Again:
AFAICS the typical littoral features (incl.diving) only appear ~2 Ma or even
less (but this is not essential to the discussion: AAT is about humans vs
chimps).
> , that is speculative; they could just as well have lived at inland lakes
and rivers initially, and moved to the coasts later.
Not impossible. But I don't follow your reasoning.
> >AAT is about Homo.
> *Your* AAT is about Homo, perhaps. Not everyone is so restrictive.
*Every* AAT is about Homo: what discerns us from Pan.
> > Biologically, Homo is everything in the Homo branch after the H/P split
~5 Ma or so. I thought that was obvious.
> Well, no. The standard definition has Homo appearing around 2.5-2Mya, and
some other (as yet unidentified) species filling the gap between the HP LCA
and early Homo.
Most PAs now believe Homo appeared ~2.5 Ma, but AAT is not about PA, it's
about why humans & chimps differ.
>You may have good reason for proposing that Homo arose so early, but it is
not the accepted situation and it is certainly not obvious.
Not obvious for PAs perhaps, but obvious for any biologist: when the HP LCA
split into P & H, we have P & H. We have to follow the mol.biologists & the
biologists, not the PAs: the fossils have to be situated in the tree, but
the fossils themselves don't say anything directly on AAT. AAT is about the
differences between living H & P. In the peer reviews of our TREE paper,
the PAs rejected it, while the biologists supported it. One of the main
reasons why AAT isn't yet accepted is that PAs still regard "humans" as
something different from other animals. AAT is a biological theory.
> [Snip description of littoral lifestyle]
> >There's no place here for "bipedality": [snip] IOW, AAT = Homo littoral
diaspora.
> *Your* AAT, Marc.
I gave my reasons (which you snipped) - do you have an alternative? As long
as we don't throw out confusing terms like "bipedality", antiAATers will
have excellent reasons IMO to question AAT. It's not bipedality as such
which makes us unique (apiths had short legs & are believed by most PAs to
have been predom."bipedal"), it's very long & straight legs, basicranial
flexion, external nose, very large brain etc. AAT is about comparing
*living* animals.
> And I think most people would regard the origins of bipedality in human
ancestors as being very much a part of any aquatic theory. -- Pauline Ross
In a sense they are, of course: AAT was one of the factors that shaped human
locomotion, but this only leads to misunderstandings: AAT is clearly *not*
about short-legged "bipeds" such as apiths. As long as people don't grasp
this, we'll never make any progress.
--Marc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- From: spiznet
- Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- References:
- Algis ranting about AAH
- From: Marc Verhaegen
- Algis ranting about AAH
- Prev by Date: Mediterranean Genesis
- Next by Date: Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- Previous by thread: Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- Next by thread: Re: Algis ranting about AAH
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
