Aquatic Apes?

[EireEmerald]

Discuss in reaction to this video.

[MrMofo]

I love the aquatic ape theory.

[Valiant Champion]

where do we look for this ancestor?

also I agree that Academia has oppressed many very good theories that warrant further research.

The system is broken

[Phier]

There is a lot of stuff wrong with the aquatic ape idea, more than I care to do personally here.

http://adhominin.com/index.php?id=4785300384760342810

So I'll let them do it.

Among this week’s new videos from TED, was a talk given by Elaine Morgan – the chief promoter of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH). The AAH was first formulated by Alister Hardy and is the idea that human evolution went through an aquatic stage, which in turn explains many of the features of the human physiology. For anybody with a poor understanding of evolutionary biology the AAH arguments can seem quite compelling. Instead of repeating the numerous reasons why the AAH fails (Jim Moore has an entire website dedicated to this), I wish to address some of the specific arguments made in this video.

I also recommend that website listed in the quote, it pretty much devastates the AA theory.

[cpdwane]

There is a lot of stuff wrong with the aquatic ape idea, more than I care to do personally here.

http://adhominin.com/index.php?id=4785300384760342810

So I'll let them do it.


I also recommend that website listed in the quote, it pretty much devastates the AA theory.

Yes, that is a very good counter to the AA Theory.

While I was reading that I certainly gotthe impression that she was preying on the beliefs that the uninformed (the audience) have about the scientific community. Poor strawmen

[Valiant Champion]

according to your links counter-argument walruses have a coating of fur.

[Phier]

according to your links counter-argument walruses have a coating of fur.

The counter argument is that fat on the surface of marine animals is food storage not aquatic insulation, and thats just one of many of the arguments.

[Phier]

Before I knew much about the people involved I heard of the aquatic ape theory and it sounded plausible but with no real proof. The one big idea that had me was that were were evolved for a diet high in fish oils but its been shown thats not really necessary.

I would not have been shocked if at some point humanity lived on a sea shore somewhere for quite some time, but a full fledged aquatic stage seems rather remote.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Seriously cant she just get to the point. My professors always said just put all your information in the beginning and use the rest of the paper to talk .

[Phier]

Seriously cant she just get to the point. My professors always said just put all your information in the beginning and use the rest of the paper to talk .

Hehe, thats what clued me in that she might be obfuscating.

[Sphere]

Hehe, thats what clued me in that she might be obfuscating.

Always be skeptical of someone who rails against the rigid, institutional, sexist/elitist/racist/anti-religion etc. nature of the scientific community as an explanation of why their particular hypothesis/theory has not been accepted. If there is any trend in the history of science, it is that if the evidence is on your side, eventually and inevitably it will be accepted and vise versa.

Einstein is a good example; initially the theory of relativity was scoffed at until data from observations made it undeniable. Then in his later years, now as the most influential scientist in the world he opposed the new discoveries in quantum theory, and sought his own "unified field theory" which despite his prestige was rejected because it simple did not fit the evidence others were producing.

I am not saying that biases and group think are not a problem in science, but I am saying that science is one of the few places were evidence will undoubtedly overcome them. So be skeptical of those who need to argue more than their evidence.

[cpdwane]

You nailed it! +rep

[John I Tzimisces]

The Aquatic ape theory is garbage, and unsupported by actual archaeological evidence of human ancestors, who were both arboreal, then both arboreal and bipedal (until homo habilis), and finally, obligate bipeds (by the time of Homo Erectus).

To support the aquatic ape theory is really kinda silly, especially if your reasoning is "sometimes the establishment is wrong!111".

edit: oh. yeah. what sphere said.

[Dr. Croccer]

Why aquatic monkeys? If you're gonna l at least do it right and claim that we're all descended from winged monkeys or giant monkeys.