We Evolved From Aquatic Apes?

[iNow]

What do you make of this?

It's nonsense.

http://www.aquaticape.org/

This web page offers a critical examination of the Aquatic Ape Theory, treating it as a serious scientific theory. It is one of the few online sources that does so. There are many other web sites which deal with it, but they do not offer the critical examination which any theory needs to be given.

If you don't like that robust reference above, then be sure to check out how Greg Laden in Minnesota killed this thing on multiple fronts:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/ ... pe_the.php

The Aquatic Ape Theory is being discussed over at Pharyngula. As PZ points out, an excellent resource on this idea is Moore's site on the topic. Here, I just want to make a few remarks about it.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/ ... quatic.php

We start off with a very inaccurate statement that we are not interested in the chimp-human differences. It is, in fact, all we palaeoanthropologists think about.

She overemphasizes the difference to say that they are total, but yes, there are differences.

She makes the error of implying that "something" happened (when it would well have been a lot of things that happened over time, or some other pattern of change)

She correctly identifies the "coming out of the trees" and bipedalism as an inadequate Theory of Everything (TOE).

She correctly identifies that the bipedalism hypotheses (as a TOE) unraveled.

She is wrong about her statements about the fossil bones and plant remains. The situation is much more complex than that. She is partly correct in reference to the over-powered paradigm of the Serengeti, but this is a bit of an overstatement.

Then the paradigm shift discussion is a red herring. I'm skipping past the whole discussion of Darwin, selective pressure, and paradigm shifts. It is muddled, unrelated to the question, and uninteresting.

Now, the claim that the "AAT" was dumped a long time ago as evidence that is should not be dumped is ... interesting.

OK on to the evidence:  <more at the link>