The Aquatic Ape Theory

[.V.]

This is the first time I have ever heard this theory. Sounds like she has a valid argument from this video on ted.com
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html

Her website http://www.elainemorgan.me.uk/

 

[IrBubble]

I guess the best way to analyze this is to look at the timeline where sapiens shared the last common ancestor with chimpanzes and then go from there. I have my doubts about humans being morepart aquatic animals though, but I can clearly see an advantage in being able to swim and then go up to land without being cold for a full night.

I'm not a biologist, so don't take my word for it, but to me it sounds reasonable that water-dwelling might have played in, but I do not believe we are decendant from a fully aquatic ancestor.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There's an awful lot of complaining about "the Man" suppressing her hypothesis that makes me wary, although I don't know much about the subject. Add to that the sort of stupidity that tends to come from feminists when extending their politics into other fields, and you get... not much of nothing, is my guess.

 

[darthrender2010]

interesting

 

[ImprobableJoe]

interesting

I totally pictured Mr. Spock arching an eyebrow and saying that...

 

[JacobEvans]

I totally pictured Mr. Spock arching an eyebrow and saying that...

ME TOO! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[darthrender2010]

I totally pictured Mr. Spock arching an eyebrow and saying that...

hehehe, I actually do that, though it's not really an immitation of Mr. Spock thing (I think the habbit came about from watching too much of Pet Detective as a kid when immitation was "the thing")

 

[ApostateProphet]

I have heard of this theory before but never quite so well put. I find myself intrigued by the possibility of our ancestors having been at least semi aquatic. I think I may need to keep tabs on this theory in the future.

 

[DerivedApe]

interesting talk though there were several things that raised my eyebrows.

She seems to go on and on of the evil academia who ignore her pet theory, so much so that she starts to sound like ID proponents.

If the evidence is there and the paper meets the requirements of peer review it gets published.
Her argument that aquatic ape theory has never studied and and examined in scientific litterature is simply falce as evidenced by simple google scholar search. She also makes a statement that I can only describe as baffling. There's only either A or B and no other options.
Researchers always must be aware that there might be a middleground or some other undiscovered idea. Her thinking leads to false dichotomies and we don't need those any more than there already are.

I also find her arguments rather unconvincing although I need to find the papers to which her arguments are based on.

The association of hominin remains with aquatic animals and plants is something that is interesting. However those associations can be explained by other ways.

Link between hairlessnes and aquatic existance is also dubious. Big animals tend to be hairless not because they are aquatic or have aquatic ancestry but simply because their great bulk makes hair insulation useless. Their mass/surface are ratio is such that they retain bodyheat much more efficiently than smaller animals do and having a thik fur coat with such bulk would lead to some serious problems. If you look at animals that are aproximately human size or smaller you see that they do have hair even if theyr aquatic. She mentions the naked molerat that is also clear exceptions. all of this clearly shows that there's no direct link between hairlessnes and aquatic lifestyle.

Can't argue about the fat layer since I'm not all that familiar of fat distribution in human body and how such fat distribution varies in humans around the world.

and lastly, no! we are not sreamlined! we have the grand dangling things that we tend to call limbs, upper set of which used to be far longer in our ancestors. Look at aquatic animals. They reduce the length of their limbs sothat they can make their body more streamlined. Seals and otters are streamlined, Hominins are definately not.

 

[ApostateProphet]

She wasn't saying we are fully streamlined and fully aquatic. Only that the process had begun and progressed for some period of time before we gave up on the water and fully returned to land. For us to lose hair and begin to become streamlined for swimming only requires that we find food sources in the water and therefore a survival advantage in being able to successfully exploit the water. The other apes all fear the water and swim poorly if at all while we like the water and swim quite well for land animals.

 

[DerivedApe]

She wasn't saying we are fully streamlined and fully aquatic. Only that the process had begun and progressed for some period of time before we gave up on the water and fully returned to land.
For us to lose hair and begin to become streamlined for swimming only requires that we find food sources in the water and therefore a survival advantage in being able to successfully exploit the water.

So semiaquatic ape then? But being semiaquatic does not require aquatic adaptations that shes advocating.

For us to lose hair and begin to become streamlined for swimming only requires that we find food sources in the water and therefore a survival advantage in being able to successfully exploit the water. The other apes all fear the water and swim poorly if at all while we like the water and swim quite well for land animals.

Yeah, we like water when it's contained in neat clean pools that don't have crocodiles swimming in them.
I seriously doubt that average human swims any better than other terrestrial mammals.

 

[WaxItYourself]

The current scientific consensus of how humans lost their hair is that it was due to overheating. Recent scientific evidence suggests that during the time of the last common ancestor between apes and humans the desertification of Africa began to become more widespread. This desertification took place in stages and in different areas and fossil evidence suggests that ancient man use to live on the borders of these vegetative wildernesses. My hypothesis is that man had to travel outside of the safety of the jungle to collect food and water from various sources. It would have been faster for them to walk on two legs and would free both their hands and arms to carry meat and containers filled with water or weapons with which to defend their group from predators. Apes however did not evolve to do this and the amount of energy they used to do this caused them to overheat and move slower so as they adapted to this new lifestyle they began to lose their body hair to be fitter for what they were doing. While all this was going on another group of the same ancestor did not have to venture outside of their wilderness in order to gather food and water. These became modern chimps.

Of course I could always be wrong

 

[DragonWing]

I find this idea very interesting. I only wish she had spent more time explaining the theory, and less time complaining about it being ignored.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I find this idea very interesting. I only wish she had spent more time explaining the theory, and less time complaining about it being ignored.

The problem is, she doesn't have anything more to say than that. It is a weak hypothesis, that she is using to show that The Man is patriarchal and rejects feminist-based "science" that she mostly just copied from someone else and doesn't really understand.

Goddamned hippie feminist chicks with their unshaved legs and pits, and their aquatic apes! :lol:

 

[ApostateProphet]

So semiaquatic ape then? But being semiaquatic does not require aquatic adaptations that shes advocating.

No it doesn't require them. But they are helpful and there fore an advange.

Yeah, we like water when it's contained in neat clean pools that don't have crocodiles swimming in them.
I seriously doubt that average human swims any better than other terrestrial mammals.

Humans swim considerably better than the other great apes. The other great apes are terrified of the water. So much so that when a handful of chimps were found that were willing to enter small pools (while holding on to a vine for safety) it was considered note worthy.

 

[DerivedApe]

No it doesn't require them. But they are helpful and there fore an advange.

There is no reason to evolve adaptations for certain kind of lifestyle unless the enviroment absolutely requires it. There are plenty of animals that forage in the water or near water that don't have those aquatic adaptations that proponents of AA hypothesis are claiming for human.

Here's a few thought questions. What advantage would have the semiaquatic lifestyle provided to early hominins?
You yourself said that modern apes are poor swimmers, right? Well early hominins had rather similar proportions to Chimpanzees, so I guess we can tentatively infer that theyr swimming ability was just as good as modern chimps. How could they compete against far more well adapted aquatic animals in the Africa. If they would be foraging in the water would they have any chance to escape nile crocodile or angry hippo? Why develop lumbar lordosis if your going to live in the water, where the boyancy leaves little job to vertebras to hold the body weight in vertical position?
why develope curved phalanges, features that are seen in apes with good climbing capability?
Why bring the big toe in to the same plane with other toes? If one is going to be aquatic I would espect the toes to be spread and webbed.

Humans swim considerably better than the other great apes.
The other great apes are terrified of the water. So much so that when a handful of chimps were found that were willing to enter small pools (while holding on to a vine for safety) it was considered note worthy.

Who tested this? When and where and which methods were used? Cite your evidence.

I

 

[ImprobableJoe]

For anyone who doesn't read Pharyngula:

http://www.aquaticape.org/

Tears it apart? Judge for yourself!

 

[ApostateProphet]

To DerivedApe

My comment about the apes poor ability to swim and dislike for the water are based on an episode of Nova I watched six months or a year ago. I don't even remember the name of the episode. It did however, leave a distinct enough impression for me to bring it up all this time later. Sorry if that's not enough for you.

As for the rest, I never said her argument was perfect only that it had some plausibility.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As for the rest, I never said her argument was perfect only that it had some plausibility.

As soon as it gets some evidence to support it, she'll be in business. Until then, she's just a couple of steps ahead of the Intelligent Design clowns.

 

[DerivedApe]

My comment about the apes poor ability to swim and dislike for the water are based on an episode of Nova I watched six months or a year ago. I don't even remember the name of the episode. It did however, leave a distinct enough impression for me to bring it up all this time later. Sorry if that's not enough for you.

Would such evidence be enough for you? If I were to base my argument on something I remember from some documentary I watched some time ago and which name I couldn't remember, would you accep that as evidence?