Aquatic ape hypothesis

Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
.... erectus lived 1.8 - 1.3 million years ago. Many cites may be under water by now.

During the most recent ice age (at its maximum about 20,000 years ago) the world's sea level was about 130 m lower than today, due to the large amount of sea water that had evaporated and been deposited as snow and ice, mostly in the Laurentide ice sheet. The majority of this had melted by about 10,000 years ago.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level#Changes_through_geologic_time
 
Joined Sep 2009
2,624 Posts | 41+
Sector N after curfew
We're dealing here with what Moore has termed the "ZING!ability" of the Aquatic ape idea:

From AquaticApe.org:

AAT/H proponents (most at least) use an awfully "fluid" set of claims about aquaticness -- what I've called ZING!ability -- to go wherever and be whatever the proponents say it should be at any given time, dodging this way and that in internally inconsistent ways so they can answer any critics in an ad hoc fashion. Critics talking about swimming -- ZING! -- it's a wading and shorewalking creature... talking about walking along the shore and not swimming -- ZING! -- it's a creature capable of long distance open sea swimming. You can see this in the past on the subject of sweat and other matters -- the AAT/H has always had this trademarked ZING!ability, the ability to ZING! in and out of watery environs as much as they need to dodge criticisms. So when any difficulty arises with one of their claims, or a critic appears -- ZING! -- off the creature goes to the shallows or the shore, and the critic is accused of malfeasance.

An early hominid making it's living by foraging along a shoreline is not even semi-aquatic. An example of a semi-aquatic animal would be the polar bear. Even if that hominid regularly waded into the water in search of food, that doesn't qualify as semi-aquatic. One thing that's always bothered me about this idea: Why are dogs able to swim by instinct, but not humans? And before anybody tries to tell me about "swimming babies," let me direct them to the relevant page from Moore's site.
 
Joined Jun 2009
3,692 Posts | 3+
western Terranova
We're dealing here with what Moore has termed the "ZING!ability" of the Aquatic ape idea:



An early hominid making it's living by foraging along a shoreline is not even semi-aquatic. An example of a semi-aquatic animal would be the polar bear. Even if that hominid regularly waded into the water in search of food, that doesn't qualify as semi-aquatic. One thing that's always bothered me about this idea: Why are dogs able to swim by instinct, but not humans? And before anybody tries to tell me about "swimming babies," let me direct them to the relevant page from Moore's site.
thank you, recusant. here, have a cookie.
 
Joined Sep 2010
6,431 Posts | 2+
i didn't know much about this "hypothesis" until i read the links--which made me laugh and shake my head. how could anyone seriously believe this?? i guess one would have to believe in evolution first:rolleyes:
 
Joined Aug 2009
21,072 Posts | 10+
Minnesnowta
i didn't know much about this "hypothesis" until i read the links--which made me laugh and shake my head. how could anyone seriously believe this?? i guess one would have to believe in evolution first:rolleyes:

Yes, that is most definately a requiset.
 
Joined Jan 2007
6,545 Posts | 70+
Scotland
Recusant.
If you don't mind me asking. Who is this Jim Moore chappy ? The author of your article. Is he an evolutionary scientist ? The fact is, I have never heard of him.

I've been reading up on some views held by leading primatologists such as Frans De Waal and although they're not supporting the aquatic ape theory. They're not discounting all aspects of it either.
 
Joined Sep 2009
2,624 Posts | 41+
Sector N after curfew
Recusant.
If you don't mind me asking. Who is this Jim Moore chappy ? The author of your article. Is he an evolutionary scientist ? The fact is, I have never heard of him.

I've been reading up on some views held by leading primatologists such as Frans De Waal and although they're not supporting the aquatic ape theory. They're not discounting all aspects of it either.

I wouldn't characterize Moore as "discounting all aspects" of the "Aquatic Ape Theory." He has merely gone through the claims, and pointed out the failings that he's found. I'll quote from the relevant portion of his site, in regards to your question:

From AquaticApe.org:

What makes me think I know what I'm talking about here?

I don't have any formal credentials in evolutionary science, so how can I expect you to believe what I tell you instead of what AAT/H proponents say? Leaving aside the fact that all the major AAT/H proponents also lack such credentials, you simply look at whether or not what I say matches actual, known facts. On this site I try to provide references for my statements, and appropriate, unaltered quotes from relevant sources to back up my facts. The more curious or enterprising amongst you may wish to read further about some of these features, and you'll find that easy to do by simply going to a library and picking up one of the books or journals I mention. If you try to do the same with most pro-AAT/H accounts, you'll find one of several problems: they often don't give a reference for a statement or quote at all; when they do the reference is often incomplete (just a name with no clue as to what publication or year the info is supposedly from; sometimes even a wrong name). On this site, I've tried to tie as many of my statements to specific references as I can; at present this is still incomplete and will be rectified during my updates. Pro-AAT/H accounts also commonly use quotes which are altered to "say" something the quoted person didn't actually say; they leave out relevant material from the same source which contradicts the AAT/H position; or they simply claim the source says the opposite of what that source actually does say. You won't find those problems here. If you do find an error on my site, please contact me -- there's a feedback link on most pages.
I got started on this subject through reading and posting in various science newsgroups during the early days of the web. I've got a knack for library research and I like the detective work that's needed to find an appropriate source of information. I've also had an informal background in anthropological research, helping my late wife, Nancy Tanner, with her research on human origins, matriliny, and social organization. This entailed finding, reading, and learning to understand a lot of info that I didn't know, such as molecular studies. In the process, I've learned that my knack for research also includes an ability to translate some pretty heavy technical jargon into English, and explain some complicated subjects in relatively simple terms. This ability to ferret out information sources from often obscure clues came in handy when I started to examine the evidence offered for the AAT/H. The references for AAT/H statements, when they are given at all, are often maddeningly incomplete or misleading. For instance, it took some hunting to find the source for a quote when the quote supposedly came from a "famous authority during a television programme" (it was actually a 1929 book by Prof. Frederick Wood Jones). Another time the source of information for a claim was said to be a 1979 book, with an author mentioned. Finding the ref then started with finding that book, then finding the one page out of hundreds (which wasn't given) that referred to the actual reference which contained the info (a 1956 article), then finding the article which contained the info, which, it turned out, didn't actually say what the AAT/H proponent claimed it did. To complete the critique of that one AAT/H claim (about seal sweat) also required finding yet another article, and a total of perhaps 6-8 hours of actual research time. I'll guarantee you the original one paragraph AAT/H bogus claim didn't take that long to churn out... and people wonder why anthropologists don't spend their time and meager research grants chasing down AAT/H claims.

So I guess I'd say my qualifications for this work are 1) a knack for library detective work, 2) an ability to learn basic scientific precepts (anyone should be able to do this one), and 3) being just a little bit nutty, cause those examples I just gave show you've got to be a little crazy to do it.

As a note, let me state that I am not the Jim Moore who is a primatologist at UCSD, nor am I the Jim Moore who wrote and cowrote several books on Darwin, nor the Jim Moore who's an anthropologist at CUNY. Although I'm not them, from what I've seen of their work, I wouldn't be insulted to be mistaken for any of them. I hope they feel the same.

Moore has been as good as his word regarding updating the site. It's been around for several years, and there are three updates for 2010 so far.
 
Joined Jan 2010
17,473 Posts | 16+
-
because I thought of an older pseudo theory, I bring the main points, which shall support the water-ape-theory, from wiki

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism"]Bipedalism[/ame] out of water causes considerable problems for the back, knees and organs, while water would support the joints and torso and permit breathing[14][15]
  • Humans are relatively hairless compared to great apes, similar to the hairlessness of land-dwelling [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros"]rhinoceros[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant"]elephant[/ame] which both have aquatic ancestors;[16] what body hair humans do have also follows water flow-lines[17]
  • Increased [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcutaneous_fat"]subcutaneous fat[/ame] for insulation, especially in human infants[5]
  • A descended larynx[17][18]
  • A hooded [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nose"]nose[/ame], muscular nostril aperture control and the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philtrum"]philtrum[/ame] preventing water from entering the nostrils[17]
  • Extensive coverage of the skin by [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebaceous_gland"]sebaceous glands[/ame][19]
  • The requirement of the human brain for certain nutrients including [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine"]iodine[/ame][20] and some [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid"]essential fatty acids[/ame][21] which are most easily found and absorbed in seafood[22]
  • Voluntary breath control which allows diving and swimming,[14][23] and a more streamlined shape compared to other apes[17]
  • The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_diving_reflex"]mammalian diving reflex[/ame] which occurs when the head is immersed in cold water[24]
  • Vestigial webbing between the fingers[25]
  • The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernix_caseosa"]waxy coating[/ame] found on newborns[17]
  • Certain morphological adaptations within the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney"]kidney[/ame][26]
If we look to bipedalism, than we must speak about a time, perhaps 6-7 million years ago, because at those days we had already bipede humanids.
The relatively hairlessness might happened millions of years later, perhaps with .... erectus
subcutaneous fat can be explained by the lack of hair and was as well a reservoir for energy
The descendend larynx can be explained as typical mammalian reflex.
A hooded nose have camels as well
The need of iodine and esential fatty acids can be explained by a later habitate which included sea food, perhaps even starting with .... sapiens forms
Breath controll and diving reflex can be explained as preadaption and typical mammalian reflex
The vestigal webbing can be found at humanoid species in early stages of life too. Perhaps humans have it, because they are neoten.
 
Joined Nov 2010
25 Posts | 0+
Da Catacombs
I don't think that early human ancestors spent enough time in or near water to really justify the idea that it actually had an impact on human evolution. I don't think it's an outlandish idea that early humans may have spent a lot of time in coastal/semi-aquatic environments, but it may have been more a case of features of human evolution being advantageous to semi-aquatic endeavors than semi-aquatic endeavors affecting human evolution.
 
Joined Jun 2009
3,692 Posts | 3+
western Terranova
I don't think that early human ancestors spent enough time in or near water to really justify the idea that it actually had an impact on human evolution. I don't think it's an outlandish idea that early humans may have spent a lot of time in coastal/semi-aquatic environments, but it may have been more a case of features of human evolution being advantageous to semi-aquatic endeavors than semi-aquatic endeavors affecting human evolution.
agreed. if humans really evolved from aquatic or even semi-aquatic animals, we would be much better swimmers. as it is, we arent.

all other evidence indicates that humans evolved on the african savannah in what is now ethiopia. one case of evidence in favor of the AAH isnt going to change any minds and isnt substantial enough to definitively prove it
 
Joined Jan 2007
6,545 Posts | 70+
Scotland
Moore has been as good as his word regarding updating the site. It's been around for several years, and there are three updates for 2010 so far.

I've been searching the web, trying to get more information about this ? and it would seem that each side is accusing the other of being amateurish in their writings ?
Moore is being accused of constantly updating his site to correct his previous errors ?

I guess the genuine scientists are avoiding this one like the proverbial hot tattie...
 
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
agreed. if humans really evolved from aquatic or even semi-aquatic animals, we would be much better swimmers. as it is, we arent.

all other evidence indicates that humans evolved on the african savannah in what is now ethiopia. one case of evidence in favor of the AAH isnt going to change any minds and isnt substantial enough to definitively prove it

You are a much better swimmer than you are a runner. Don't believe me? Have a running race with a dog, then a swimming race. Which one will you win?
 
Joined Jan 2007
6,545 Posts | 70+
Scotland
all other evidence indicates that humans evolved on the african savannah in what is now ethiopia. one case of evidence in favor of the AAH isnt going to change any minds and isnt substantial enough to definitively prove it

Yeah, but didn't Ethiopia have a large inland sea during the time we're talking about here ? and isn't it the case that most early hominid fossils have been found in or very close to water ?(or were water used to be) The usual explanation being, they probably went for a drink, fell in, and drowned....

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just love a good puzzle. :)
 
Joined Nov 2010
124 Posts | 0+
Queensland
Fossils being found in or near water may only mean that hominids lived close to a water supply. It could also have something to do with the level of preservation as organic material is sometimes better preserved in mud.

Most of the trouble with testing this hypothesis seems to be that it relies on soft tissue changes that cannot be readily identified in fossils. I don't believe that the aquatic ape theory has much substance to it when compared to terrestrial explanations.
 
Joined Jan 2007
6,545 Posts | 70+
Scotland
The thing is. If the terrestrial explanations had more substance ? to them. No one would even give the aqua theory a second thought.

It's not the fact that scientists are refusing to support this theory, that puzzles me. It's the fact that they're not writing it off, that I find curious.
 
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
Fossils being found in or near water may only mean that hominids lived close to a water supply. It could also have something to do with the level of preservation as organic material is sometimes better preserved in mud.

Most of the trouble with testing this hypothesis seems to be that it relies on soft tissue changes that cannot be readily identified in fossils. I don't believe that the aquatic ape theory has much substance to it when compared to terrestrial explanations.

What's the terrestrial explanation for bipedalism then?
 
Joined Jun 2009
3,692 Posts | 3+
western Terranova
You are a much better swimmer than you are a runner. Don't believe me? Have a running race with a dog, then a swimming race. Which one will you win?
thats because we have much longer limbs than dogs (most of them anyway) and can but more force into each swing. dogs arent adapted for water either, but they can swim by instinct (at least i THINK they can, or they can in most cases), whereas a human will sink like a stone if they dont know how to swim. remind me again how that makes us adapted to live in water?
Yeah, but didn't Ethiopia have a large inland sea during the time we're talking about here ? and isn't it the case that most early hominid fossils have been found in or very close to water ?(or were water used to be) The usual explanation being, they probably went for a drink, fell in, and drowned....

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just love a good puzzle. :)
not that i know of. i'll admit that geological history isnt my forte, but im pretty sure the last shallow seas around africa predated hominids by some 15-20 million years. as stated before, finding a fossil near water doesnt necessarily mean that it lived near there constantly, its just a very convenient spot to be fossilized because deposits of silt and whatnot would continually bury the animal's skeleton, fossilizing it over millions of years,whereas if it was just out in the middle of a field, it would not only be destroyed by artificial forces like other animals but also simply whether [spl?] away by natural forces like wind and rain. and after all, hundreds if not thousands of fossils of sea creatures have been found in DESERTS! would you think that a mosasaur or a giant turtle with flippers lived in deserts if you found its fossils there? and mammoth fossils are regularly dredged up from the NORTH SEA!
Fossils being found in or near water may only mean that hominids lived close to a water supply. It could also have something to do with the level of preservation as organic material is sometimes better preserved in mud.
pretty much, yeah
It's not the fact that scientists are refusing to support this theory, that puzzles me. It's the fact that they're not writing it off, that I find curious.
to be fair, i think teh reason for that is probably because scientists dont want to just call it bull and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. most of the evidence points to teh savannah hypothesis, but who knows? AAH may be the right one.

i'd like to take this time to remind everyone that evolution in any way, shape, or form is NOT a philosophy
What's the terrestrial explanation for bipedalism then?
arboreal apes descend from trees because of climate change causing forests to diminish, forcing them out onto savannahs to look for food. they cant see predators over the grass, so they start to evolve into upright creatures that CAN look over the grass and spot predators
 

Trending History Discussions

Top