The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis...

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):

The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape cousins. And that, as a result, many of the major physical differences between humans and the other apes may be explained, to a large extent, as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better through various aquatic media and from greater feeding on resources that might be procured from such habitats.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis)

...an interesting read if nothing else. Is this a load of crap or what?

[Brainwalter]

load of crap, humans didn't come from monkeys.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
load of crap, humans didn't come from monkeys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I ALWAYS take the bait...

Of course we didn't 'come from monkeys,' we simply share a common ancestor with monkeys, and a more recent one with the apes. I will HOPE that is the nit you were picking.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH):

The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape cousins. And that, as a result, many of the major physical differences between humans and the other apes may be explained, to a large extent, as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better through various aquatic media and from greater feeding on resources that might be procured from such habitats.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis)

...an interesting read if nothing else. Is this a load of crap or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dig it, Rduke55 does not. He knows more on the subject than I do, so he's probably right. But I still think it's a cool hypothesis.

[Rduke55]

I find it amusing but baseless.
There are perfectly good terrestrial reasons for the adaptations that AAP proponents say are adaptations to an aquatic lifestyle.
Maybe more importantly, the fossil record supports the terrestrial evolution.
FWIW, I have not met an evolutionary scientist that takes this seriously.

One quote I like is from Langdon in an article critiquing AAH in The Journal of Human Evolution:

"Most of these criticisms have been previously voiced in one form or another, yet umbrella hypotheses ranging from mainstream science to the paranormal maintain their popularity among students, general audiences, and scholars in neighboring disciplines. One reason for this is that simple answers, however wrong, are easier to communicate and are more readily accepted than the more sound but more complex solutions."
(Volume 33, Number 4, October 1997, pp. 479-494)

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course we didn't 'come from monkeys,' we simply share a common ancestor with monkeys, and a more recent one with the apes. I will HOPE that is the nit you were picking.



[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely wrong, there is no common ape ancestor. He knew what it meant. No discussion here, ignorance is rampant in the search for bones of my great,great,...... grandfather.

[Borodog]

Rduke55,

I think it's simply that there has been no (to my knowledge) popular debunking of the hypothesis, or popular explanation of the evolution of the suite of features associated with the AAH. It will take a fairly inspirationally presented alternative (ala Dawkins, for example) to debunk the inherent "coolness" of the hypothesis.

I have said before that the reason people believe in Bigfoot , UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, and a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll is that the world is a more interesting, cooler place if such things exist.

It would be cool if the AAH were true (which is why I have a soft spot for it, even though you've pretty much convinced me it's not). You've got to overcome that in people's minds with a cool alternative.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Rduke55,

I think it's simply that there has been no (to my knowledge) popular debunking of the hypothesis, or popular explanation of the evolution of the suite of features associated with the AAH. It will take a fairly inspirationally presented alternative (ala Dawkins, for example) to debunk the inherent "coolness" of the hypothesis.

I have said before that the reason people believe in Bigfoot , UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, and a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll is that the world is a more interesting, cooler place if such things exist.

It would be cool if the AAH were true (which is why I have a soft spot for it, even though you've pretty much convinced me it's not). You've got to overcome that in people's minds with a cool alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. that's a classic problem scientists have. They think everyone thinks like them. And some of them (moreso in the past) dislike popular science.

[Big Limpin]

Here is a link to a couple half hour discussions on the AAH, if you are interested: (audio, real player required)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml

[anthrosciguy]

Hi, my name is Jim Moore, and I've studied the evidence offered for the aquatic ape theory for over a decade, and have a site critiquing it. I've found it to be chock full of errors of various sorts in all its various forms.

I've been doing this checking for 10 years now and have had a version of my site up since 1996. My site has been used as a reference by The Straight Dope (22 Jan 2002 (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maquaticape.html)) and The Fortean Times (Oct 2003), as well as the Talk Origins Archive and several college courses -- plus of course just plain folks interested in facts. I've also recently written an entry about it in the Sage Encyclopedia of Anthropology (which is unfortunately so expensive I can't buy one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

The site is Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim? (http://www.aquaticape.org).

My site covers many of the extremely numerous mistakes Elaine Morgan and other AAT proponents have made in constructing their theory. These include errors of fact, misunderstanding of basic evolutionary principles, and techiques common in pseudoscience (and creationism) like ignoring contrary evidence, even when it's in the same book, or on the same page, as evidence they use; altering quotes to make them seem to prop up their theory; and saying that experts said one thing when they actually said the opposite. Being one of the people that Elaine Morgan got information from online, and having personally corrected her many times, with references to back it up, I can say she's not too keen on correcting her work -- she's still saying many of the same things that've been discredited long ago. But then many of the "facts" that the AAT used when it was first proposed (by respected marine biologist Alister Hardy, an expert on plankton) were known to be false for decades before he used them. Pretty poor scholarship all around.

My site is pretty long, and I'm afraid it's not as easy as I'd like to find specific info, so here's a couple of direct links as well: you may have seen the "AAT Leaflet" around the web which lists supposed aquatic characteristics; I have an annotated version (http://www.aquaticape.org/leaflist.html) which corrects the errors in it. And I have a critique of Morgan's 1997 book (http://www.aquaticape.org/aahbook.html), which is her best work on the subject to date; however, it's riddled with errors, and my critique covers those that jumped out at me without even having to dig for them. There was also a 2-part radio show last spring (and recently repeated) on BBC Radio 4, done by David Attenborough and riddled with errors; I have a critique on that as well (http://www.aquaticape.org/bbc4_notes.html).

[Borodog]

Interesting stuff. Thanks. How did you find this site/thread?

[anthrosciguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stuff. Thanks. How did you find this site/thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google alert. I like to see where my site is noted, or whee they're having discussions about the subject.

[vhawk01]

Well, stick around and read some of the fascinating, high-brow discussions we have around here. The special this week is: Is God worse than Pol Pot?

I hear next weeks topic is Biblical Plagues: Are you at greater risk than you know?

[anthrosciguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, stick around and read some of the fascinating, high-brow discussions we have around here. The special this week is: Is God worse than Pol Pot?

I hear next weeks topic is Biblical Plagues: Are you at greater risk than you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Ol' Pol gave it a good try, but time is on the other fella's side -- I don't think anyone has a chance to beat his record -- and he keeps adding to it every day! Talk about your overachievers...