some PA misunderstandings about AAT
- From: Marc Verhaegen <m_verhaegen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:37:03 +0200
For a common masthead, perhaps something like ...
"AAT - The hypotheses that the ancestors of genus Homo
were for a time, shore apes"
... could be acceptable to both.
AAT is not about apes, nor about ancestors of Homo, it
is about Homo, after the H/P split.
Marc. The ancestors of Homo, are our precursors after
the P/H split. ---m3d
No, these are our (=sapiens) ancestors.
After the H/P split, we simply have:
- Pan &
- Homo.
Homo, genus Homo ... is based on brain size, none of
our precursors prior to H.erectus qualify, as Homo.
You use perhaps a paleontol.definition, I use a biological definition (DNA).
AAT is based on comparative data.
In principle, AAT is independent of paleontol.data.
But, as expected, the paleontol.data nicely confirm & specify AAT:
- littoral diaspora,
- brain enlargement,
- external nasal bone,
- pachyosteosclerosis,
- ear exostoses in erectus etc.
(a qualification, that was wrongly lowered IMO
to include the oddball A.habilis as H.habilis) ... ---m3d
Yes, the term "habilis" is confusing & should be abandoned IMO & replaced by
the specific fossils, eg, ER-1480 (Homo?), OH-62 (Pan?) etc.
Not surprisingly there were a lot of "transitional forms" in the fossil
record between H & P in the first millions of years after the split.
IMO it's useless trying to place these in 1 of the branches (H or P or a
sidebranche of the common HP stem) unless you can isolate DNA from the
fossils.
Unless he has changed, I think Algis favors a riparian scenario, and Marc
and others have written realistically of mangrove swamps, which might not
I'm not committed to mangroves ideas, but pointed to some parallels in
hard-object feeding between apes & capuchins (tool use, thick enamel,
mangrove oysters...).
always be considered "shore". I think the longstanding formulation, "human
ancestors may have been more aquatic in the past" still covers the bases
pretty well, although of course some people will try to read "more aquatic"
as meaning something more than most of us do. Michael Burns
Yes: "Man was more aquatic in the past."
--Marc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: some Wetloon's misunderstandings about gaps in record
- From: Lee Olsen
- Re: some Wetloon's misunderstandings about gaps in record
- Prev by Date: Re: Hobbits and shellfish - a note.
- Next by Date: Re: Questions about human aquatic past
- Previous by thread: Hobbits and shellfish - a note.
- Next by thread: Re: some Wetloon's misunderstandings about gaps in record
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
