Just read about the AAT and how it’s surrounded with all this criticism. Why haven’t there been critiques of other theories like this one? Is it that hard to believe?
In: Biology
There is nothing in particular about the theory that can’t be explained by other, more accepted theories that have more evidence. It’s not impossible, but it’s just not something there is direct evidence for.
The ELI5 is likely too simple to satisfy you. There is no evidence for it and it doesn’t line up with the evidence we have. It’s a “theory” more in the layman’s use of that term, e.i. it’s an idea someone thought of that might be possible. It’s not a theory in scientific terms because it doesn’t fit the existing pattern of data.
Mostly because it’s not supported by any evidence (most of the early hominid remains come from dry savannah areas) and it doesn’t explain anything that isn’t already explained by other things.
That’s not to say it’s impossible, or possible that it played some role in our development.
I think it attracted more criticism because it became briefly quite popular and well known, despite lacking clear evidence. Other theories have either attracted less attention over all or have been a better fit with the available evidence.
If you’re interested in the subject can I recommend a book called ‘The Eternal Child’ by Clive Bromhall? It’s a zoologist’s take on how neoteny has shaped humans, both physically and mentally. Fascinating.
Latest Answers