Happy Atheist Forum

What do you make of this?

http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html?awesm=on.ted.com_25&utm_campaign=ted&utm_medium=on.ted.com-twitter&utm_source=direct-on.ted.com&utm_content=site-basic

Well, I personally loved her talk and the fact that she questions everything as she does. The quotes she used were funny and on the mark too. I was never taught this theory (which helps her make her point) so I don't know anything about it. But I sure hopes she gets people thinking.

Interesting hypothesis - and a stellar example of how science can work.

Aquatic Ape?  I am one!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leaderslair.com%2Fnamor%2Fnamor.gif&hash=c88487abe4b6364e3af0619fa17ec9a576409eb5)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages49.fotki.com%2Fv856%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6623378%2Fmonkey-vi.jpg&hash=7c3f8d576aaa6928acc514779a087d28666b2819)

Ive heard of that before. In a nutshell, its supposed to explain why we lost our fur and why we stand straight. Im not sure I accept it yet.

Correct. It also potentially explains our ability to speak (only animals who are "divers" can consciously control their breath). And I think it would really explain why our ancestors were hunters. If these primates had to dive for food to survive their diet would consist mostly of fish. At least to me it would seem that their early carnivorous behavior would offer a satisfying reason for why our more recent ancestors were hunters, unlike other primates who (while still omnivores) primarily ate like herbivores. It really opens up a new pathway toward how we achieved our high EQ. I like this theory, although I can't necessarily say I accept it. More evidence would be nice.

Quote from: "Sophus"More evidence would be nice.

Psh, you sound just like all those scientists... always wanting evidence for this and evidence for that. Can't you just be happy with what God tells you is true? Damn heathens, jeeze.

Evidence? More streamlined naked humans would be nice.

Quote from: "AlP"Evidence? More streamlined naked humans would be nice.

Now that's the kind of science I can stand behind!  

Quote from: "AlP"Evidence? More streamlined naked humans would be nice.

You win!  

I admit, I do like this theory, but unfortunately I really doubt that it's valid.  A problem with it that immediately came to my mind (and therefore has probably been raised before) is: If ancestors of H. Sapiens spent millenia as "aquatic apes," then the ability to swim should be an instinctive thing with us.  Dogs, who do not as far as I know have "aquatic canines" in their family tree, are able to swim without any instruction at all; if our ancestors spent enough time in water to evolve certain morphological traits, one would think that we should be at least as comfortable in water as our furry friends. Also, mammals that have evolved for a life in water tend to have a pronounced layer of body fat, which we as a species do not.
Still, I find the idea of our ancestors happily splashing about in the water very charming.

Quote from: "Recusant"I admit, I do like this theory, but unfortunately I really doubt that it's valid.  A problem with it that immediately came to my mind (and therefore has probably been raised before) is: If ancestors of H. Sapiens spent millenia as "aquatic apes," then the ability to swim should be an instinctive thing with us.  Dogs, who do not as far as I know have "aquatic canines" in their family tree, are able to swim without any instruction at all; if our ancestors spent enough time in water to evolve certain morphological traits, one would think that we should be at least as comfortable in water as our furry friends. Also, mammals that have evolved for a life in water tend to have a pronounced layer of body fat, which we as a species do not.
Still, I find the idea of our ancestors happily splashing about in the water very charming.

You may be on to something there. But here are my thoughts:

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think these aquatic ape ancestors of ours would be somewhat distant. Through our many transitional ancestors in between perhaps swimming was no longer required and the instinct was lost.

As for the fat, this lady seemed to be under the impression that it explains why humans are able to become so immensly obese while other primates are not.

I doubt "Aquatic" is corrct. I mean, It could be a swampy enviroment like the amazon, or an enviroment filled with rivers. You guys are thinking ocean, not river. Sea, not swamp.

This is bullcrap....we evolved from retarded fish frogs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Lzib4yeio)

Quote from: "Big Mac"This is bullcrap....we evolved from retarded fish frogs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Lzib4yeio)

I think he was only talking about christians...

Quote from: "Sophus"What do you make of this?

It's nonsense.

http://www.aquaticape.org/ (http://www.aquaticape.org/)

QuoteThis 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 (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/musings_on_the_aquatic_ape_the.php)

QuoteThe 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 (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/my_critique_of_morgans_aquatic.php)

QuoteWe 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 (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/08/my_critique_of_morgans_aquatic.php)>