Marc Verha
Mon, Apr-21-08, 17:21
From AAT:
Op 17-04-2008 15:34, bernieharper2002
<Bernard.Harper@liverpool.ac.uk> schreef:
>>> I notice this morning that scientists have just discovered
>>> fossils that vindicate a prediction made by Elaine Morgan
>>> in her book "The Descent of Woman". She had noted the
>>> large size of elephants, and their hairlessness - and
>>> other things, including their trunks - as evidence of an
>>> aquatic ancestor. That ancestor apparently has now been
>>> found. John Savard
>> :-)
> Hi Marc, I saw a story earlier today (on my computer at
> home-url to follow) that these fossils are from elephant
> relatives and may not be ancestral :-(
Yes, of course: fossils are never direct ancestors: they're +
or - close relatives of ancestors. Same with apiths: they're
relatives of gorillas, chimps or humans, but not directly
ancestral. But the isotopes seem to confirm (cf.kidney study
on elephant fetuses in PNAS a few years ago) that elephant
ancestors were semi-aquatic.
> However, the issue for AAT is simple IMO: Can this method of
> analysis be used to ascertain the diet and environment of
> human ancesators? If so, it could support AAT and may lead
> to an important part of the proof required to convince the
> sceptics. Bernie
Yes, this method can be applied to fossil relatives of humans
& apes, although it needs a lot of refinement, eg, comparisons
to more spp, to more diets (not only "terr." vs."aq.": says
nothing!), combinations of different isotopes etc.? Our direct
ancestors probably lived at the coasts most of the time, so
their fossils have disappeared, but when applied to, eg,
Mojokerto (found in a delta), it could probably learn us
something on their diet.
--Marc
Op 17-04-2008 15:34, bernieharper2002
<Bernard.Harper@liverpool.ac.uk> schreef:
>>> I notice this morning that scientists have just discovered
>>> fossils that vindicate a prediction made by Elaine Morgan
>>> in her book "The Descent of Woman". She had noted the
>>> large size of elephants, and their hairlessness - and
>>> other things, including their trunks - as evidence of an
>>> aquatic ancestor. That ancestor apparently has now been
>>> found. John Savard
>> :-)
> Hi Marc, I saw a story earlier today (on my computer at
> home-url to follow) that these fossils are from elephant
> relatives and may not be ancestral :-(
Yes, of course: fossils are never direct ancestors: they're +
or - close relatives of ancestors. Same with apiths: they're
relatives of gorillas, chimps or humans, but not directly
ancestral. But the isotopes seem to confirm (cf.kidney study
on elephant fetuses in PNAS a few years ago) that elephant
ancestors were semi-aquatic.
> However, the issue for AAT is simple IMO: Can this method of
> analysis be used to ascertain the diet and environment of
> human ancesators? If so, it could support AAT and may lead
> to an important part of the proof required to convince the
> sceptics. Bernie
Yes, this method can be applied to fossil relatives of humans
& apes, although it needs a lot of refinement, eg, comparisons
to more spp, to more diets (not only "terr." vs."aq.": says
nothing!), combinations of different isotopes etc.? Our direct
ancestors probably lived at the coasts most of the time, so
their fossils have disappeared, but when applied to, eg,
Mojokerto (found in a delta), it could probably learn us
something on their diet.
--Marc