--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey, Salyavin, Scientific American isn't impressed
> > > by Attenborough's attempt to revive the Aquatic Ape
> > > theory:
> > 
> > Nice try, when someone come up with a theory that explains
> > all the changes in one go I'll have to be convinced.
> I'm wichoo on the Aquatic Ape theory--not, I hasten to admit,
> because I know anything more than the very basics of what it
> says, but simply because I find it, I don't know,
> aesthetically appealing, I guess. After reading the article
> you posted, I was hoping maybe the theory might be getting
> some traction, but it doesn't sound like it from the SciAm
> piece. (I did think the Space Ape "parody" was pretty feeble,
> though.)

> > Talking of bad backs, like we were, our weak lower spine
> > is due to our unique (among land animals) habit of walking
> > around with our heads balanced on top of an upright spine.
> > 
> > The only other mammals that have this perpendicular 
> > arrangement are the whales and seals etc. In fact it's
> > the first adaptation that mammals go through when converting
> > to an aquatic lifestyle, pull em out of the water a few million
> > years after they started down this path and all of them would 
> > be walking around like us,
> Er, um, seals, dolphins maybe, but whales? You can't have
> functional critters much bigger than humans that walk
> upright. Bone just ain't that strong. But I suppose
> the mammals that became whales took a lot longer than a
> few million years to get so big.

I meant the animals that whales and dolphins evolved from,
small dog like critters. To become bipedal they would have
to be re-earthed before they lost their hind limbs and
gained their huge size.

You can trace all cetaceans back through the fossil record
and all show the same simple adaptations. Some think that 
due to our different starting point in body plan - we had 
the arms and legs of tree dwellers, instead of upright 
supportive limbs of ground animals - we would probably have
ended up like large frogs because our legs pivot further and
might have got used to swim in a different way than dogs paddle.
Very speculative as it's probably impossible to predict what's
coming next, you'd never guess what mammals would have done
after the dino's died out...

> > it's simply the easiest way to explain
> > why we have such a preposterous method of getting about. 
> > Conventional explanations like we evolved upright to see over
> > long grass, or to free our hands for tool use seem to be putting
> > the cart before the horse.
> That second one, definitely. Is that serious proposed?

Yup. Another one is reducing the amount of body area exposed to
direct sun. And, as you say, looking over grass for predators.

What's good about AA is that it gets so many hard to explain
things that happened at the same time in one fell swoop. A unified
field of evolution. Except not many really believe it of course, 
and won't until some missing links are found in an obviously 
estuarine environment, other than that I don't see how you are 
going to prove any theory definitively.
> But we could have been more readily picked off by
> predators if we couldn't see them coming over the grass, no?

> > It may be considered rubbish but I still like it. I think a
> > lot of objections from scientists originally came from the
> > fact that the new age community adopted the idea as though
> > we came from a sort of beach-hippy utopia which is the opposite
> > any dramatic change in environment causes either fast evolution
> > or fast extinction, hence such a rapid change.
> Did something get left out here after "opposite"? I can't
> make sense of the last sentence.

Hmmm, how about "case as" and then "in us compared to our


Some good reviews that mention a lot of the books best points.

Reply via email to