The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory, proposes that the ancestors of humans went through one or more periods of living in aquatic settings, which was responsible for the development of many of the characteristics of Homo genus that are not seen in other primates. The AAH theorizes that when early or proto-humans lived in proximity to water, they gathered much of their food in or near shallow bodies of water through beach-combing, gathering aquatic plants and animals, coconuts and bird's eggs. Variations propose fresh-water habitats, in the timescale, and the proposed degree of selection arising from moving through water. The most popular formulation involves a semi-aquatic episode coinciding with the Pliocene-Pleistocene littoral diaspora of the Homo genus along the East-African Rift Valley lakes and the African and Indian Ocean coasts.

Claim: Nakedness - Humans are the only primate species in which, over most of the body, hair is so fine and sparse as to reveal the skin under it into adulthood. Some aquatic mammals such as whales, dolphins, walrus, dugongs, and manatees, and some semi-aquatic mammals hippopotamus also have sparse hair and visible skin into adulthood. The babirusa is a medium-sized littoral mammal which is about as naked as humans are. Therefore, humans have sparse hair because they are semi-aquatic.

Counter-claim: Humans also developed sweat glands. These displaced hair follicles in the skin to allow cooling of the body during vigorous exercise, an adaptation which seems useless for water dwellers.

Claim: Bipedalism - ...as evolution works in small steps and in such a situation it is hard to see how bipedalism could have evolved on the savannah. Water, however, supports the body, and proboscis monkeys as well as lowland gorillas have been observed wading bipedally in mangrove or swamp forests. Baboons have also been observed to cross shallow water bipedally. It has been claimed that the one other animal known to have a pelvis adapted to bipedal walking was prehistoric Oreopithecus bambolii (commonly known as the "swamp ape" owing to its flooded habitat).

Counter-claim: Most apes are at least temporarily bipedal, using their upright state for locomotion, feeding and sentry behavior, all of which are useful for terrestrial life.

Claim: Breathing - Humans are the only land animals with a dive reflex. Most land mammals have no conscious control over their breathing. The voluntary control humans have over their respiratory system can be compared to that of (semi)aquatic mammals which inhale as much air as they need for a dive, then return to the surface for air. Morgan argued that this voluntary breathing capacity was one of the preadaptations to human voluntary speech.

Counter-claim: All vertebrates have a dive reflex. All land animals have some control over their breathing, and most have an ability to make voluntary noises such as dogs barking or lions roaring. Aquatic mammals do not inhale and store the oxygen they need in their lungs; they store it in their blood.

Those are just some of the theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Ape_Theory

Horses also sweat, though. And they are still hair covered.



I don't know about ALL, but I do know that some dogs I've known have been able to retreive rocks and stuff from the bottom of pools and ponds without inhaling under the water....


I don't think that the aquatic ape theory has enough evidence behind it to be taken very seriously, but it is interesting and I think there MIGHT be something to it...

There's some evidence to point towards water-going apes being our ancestors, but not (as I understand it) a lot.
It certainly has nothing to do with dolphins, though.

--Jaylemurph

You may be suprised but the dive reflex has been found in all known mammals studied. Humans are actually one of the worst at it so it really isn't a boon for the aquatic origin theory. It's not the act of holding one's breath though. It's an autonomic response that causes bradycardia when water touches the nasal passages.

and what, praytell, is bradycardia?

Pronounced reduction of the heart rate. It saves oxygen while the animal tries not to drown.

Ah...yea, I've heard that those crazy people who do extreme un-aided deep water dives spend a lot of time learning how to get into this phase faster. Interesting, although terrifying, stuff.

Actually the theory does make sense when you consider it. Then you consider the established theory and you're like, oh right this is far less stupid. But anyway another point that was ignored in the original post is, uh, wait can I say breasts without it getting bleeped? Because one of the more interesting and even slightly convincing theories is based around the fact that humans are the only mammals with breasts that remain throughout their whole lives, others only develop such organs when young are born. It has been considered by Aquatic Ape theorists that breasts were orignally evolved for bouyancy, but I doubt it because large breasts are not seen in any other aquatic mammal.

And the fact that not even 50% of the species would have them at one time.

--Jaylemurph

Yeah, but still AAH theorists consider it evidence.

I've been studying AAT for over 30 years now & it's obvious that human ancestors after the human/chimp split were strongly waterside. How, when & where exactly is still a matter of dicussion. For recent data, links & discussions, please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT or google "aquarboreal".

I've yet to see even one convincing strand of evidence to support AAT. If you have one, by all means, post it.

Although this could be "stretching it," maybe the AAH could explain mermaids. Hey, maybe they didn't "evolve" all the way. Just an opinion.

There's a competing theory that female human breasts are an adaptation to changes in mating behavior brought on by our upright stature. The theory is that breasts resemble buttocks, thus increasing the attractiveness of the female to the male of the species when the female is viewed from the front, a more effective position for mating for upright animals. That's a bit of a stretch, since I haven't seen how this effectiveness rating was arrived at. Also, I don't know of any documentation on whether other apes also mate facing each other.

I've read that AAH proponents have also proposed that human breasts are situated higher on the sternum than other mammals to allow infants to suckle while the mother is in deeper water.

Another item left out of the OPs claims (more precisely, those who argue against the savannah ape) is the large amount of urine produced by humans and its diluteness is too wasteful for a savannah critter to survive effectively. All other savannah critters produce very concentrated urine much less often than we do to conserve water. We seem to have evolved from species that didn't lack for water.

"It is impossible in a brief outline to discuss all the physical features distinguishing us from the apes, but a few are worth mentioning.

For example, we have a different way of sweating from other mammals, using different skin glands. It is very wasteful of the body's essential resources of water and salt. It is therefore unlikely that we acquired it on the savannah, where water and salt are both in short supply.

We weep tears of emotion, controlled by different nerves from the ones that cause our eyes to water in response to smoke or dust. No other land animal does this. There are marine birds, marine reptiles and marine mammals which shed water through their eyes, or through special nasal glands, when they have swallowed too much seawater. This process may also be triggered in them by an emotional excitement caused by feeding or fighting or frustration. Weeping animals, apart from ourselves, include the walrus, the seal and the sea otter.

We have millions of sebaceous glands which exude oil over head, face and torso, and in young adults often causes acne. The chimpanzee's sebaceous glands are described as "vestigial" whereas ours are described as "enormous". Their purpose is obscure. In other animals the only known function of sebum is that of waterproofing the skin or the fur.

The most widely discussed contrast between ourselves and the apes is that we have bigger brains. A bigger brain may well have been an advantage to early man, but it would have been equally of advantage to a chimpanzee: the question is why one of them acquired it.

One factor may have been nutritional. The building of brain tissue, unlike other body tissues, is dependent on an adequate supply of Omega-3 fatty acids, which are abundant in the marine food chain but relatively scarce in the land food chain.

AAT is the only theory which logically connects all these and other enigmatic features and relates them to a single well attested historical event. "

From: http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm

Dangit, Incorrigible, as soon as I read "brain" in your post I remembered that point about how easy access to seafood may have affected human evolution. We still have quite a fondness for it. As a group, humans exhibit a tendency to live near water, especially oceans. New Orleans is a proven deathtrap, and yet people can't resist living in places like that.

Evolution doesn;t seem to exist, you know Charles Darwin's drawings of how a human, salamandar and chicken embroyo look the same at a certain point of time, ITS Fake they did a real test with cams ,the one you stick into ppl and guess what , Charles Darwin's things are fake, and besides why would humans be the only inteligent creature whereas others didnt change at all, it doesnt make sense, therefore, humans nvr did evolve

Here's what my observations lead me to believe: Humans did not originate from any single location or any single species. Biologists and archeologists are noticing how vastly different all of our ancestors are

They might as well be different species.
I noticed, the further back in history you go, the more unique our ancestors appeared, and the more spread-out they were across the planet. Each had their own story of their origins - usually a race of humanoids from the sky or under the Earth spawning them - and no historical or archeological indication that they came from Africa or Mesopotamia. Many existed during the same time periods, or with gigantic gaps between their time period and the time periods of other humanoids in their location.

I think all these humanoids showed up under their own circumstances, possibly from different species, and collided to become a common humanoid. Darwin might have been about certain Africans coming from apes, but that doesn't account for everyone. One civilization could have come from dolphins - it's a matter of finding out which one. Another civilization (I can't remember which) had a very close resemblance to otters in its early years

Sad to see a good thread going downhill.

Yeah way to go

It looks impressive on the website, Incorrigible, but closer examination of the claims there seem to expose the failings of their evidence.


Here - Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim - is a critique of AAT, particularly Morgan's take on it. It offers scientific criticism of all the claims made in support of AAT, with references.

Thanks, Leonardo. Excellent site, and helps rescue this interesting thread. You probably realize I didn't mean to sound as if I placed a lot of credence into the AAT, but posted my info as food for thought.

People with "Yellow" complexions such as certain Africans, Amerinds, Polynesians and Asian have a subcutaneous layer of yellow fat which protects from getting chilled while swimming but I do not think Europeans have it.


Lapiche

Source please. It's a proven fact that ALL embryos resemble each other
at early stages.

The whole human-aquatic ancestor thing is quite interesting. The only problem I have
with it is that humans were badly designed for swiming.



That like saying: since the phone is green you can't call people in Alabama.

"People with "Yellow" complexions such as certain Africans, Amerinds, Polynesians and Asian have a subcutaneous layer of yellow fat which protects from getting chilled while swimming but I do not think Europeans have it."

Well europeans should have this layer of fat being that all humans have virtually identical physiology. the aquatic ape theory sounds pretty scientific but the traditional theory that has been backed approach is more acceptable. Chimpanzees are the only species on this planet that we can relate to, genetically and in other aspects.

Thanks for clarifying that as I was going to post and had assumed otherwise. I will make a couple of points though, about a couple things others have said in this thread and about the material you posted from the other site.

First, let me reintroduce myself. I've posted here before, but not often. I'm Jim Moore, the guy whose site Leonardo linked to.

Then let me point out that "aquape", who posted for the first time here in this thread, is Marc Verhaegen, and you can read about the quality of his research on the matter on my site (direct link to that page). It isn't good.

The claim OptimisticSkeptic made about urine concentrations is untrue. Humans' urine concentrating abilities are in the typical range of terrestrial, non-desert living mammals. Marine mammals and desert mammals have much better kidneys for concentrating urine (because they both face the same problem, little or no fresh water).

The claim Piney made ("People with "Yellow" complexions such as certain Africans, Amerinds, Polynesians and Asian have a subcutaneous layer of yellow fat which protects from getting chilled while swimming but I do not think Europeans have it.") is also untrue. There's a lot of info about fat on my site and that's probably the best place to look if you're deeply interested in it, but the basics are that Johnny Cuchara is right, all humans are pretty similar in the basics of fat.

Now the claims from the Primitivism site which Incorrigible1 posted; although I have info on these claims on my site, since it's a big site it may be hard to run around and find info on each point. Also, in another forum a while back I answered these point by point, so I'll cut and paste from that:



This (eccrine sweating) is seen also in apes, to a lesser extent than humans, and in several savanna species of monkeys, such as the patas monkey and vervets. Much more on my site about eccrine sweating and salt.



Completely untrue, and worse, completely dishonest. There are only anecdotal accounts of non-human animals weeping emotional tears, and those accounts include both aquatic and terrestrial animals. What's more, the AAT proponent who brought this up, Elaine Morgan, got the info from a very good book on the subject by the leading researcher on the subject, and all this info was in one short chapter. Yet she mentioned only the aquatic species and ignored the terrestrial species, even though doing so through an honest mistake would require skipping every other paragraph or so.



Again false. The primary purpose of sebaceous glands is to provide scent in a variety of mammals, including humans. It is obviously sexually selected, since these glands switch on at puberty and are more numerous in males, while the sense of smell is more developed in females. (There's some brief activity of these glands in newborns, which seems to help in mother-child bonding.) In those few mammals (seals) where sebaceous glands also help to waterproof the skin, the skin is highly specialized and very unlike human skin. More on my site.



Larger brains are not necessarily better; in fact, they take more energy to grow and maintain, which is why animals typically have as much brain as they need and not more. The idea that Omega-3 fatty acids were not abundant enough in the terrestrial food chain to develop larger brains is unfounded. You can see this by remembering that there are humans who do not eat fish or marine foods, and who don't live near such food sources, yet they grow normal brains. It has also been determined by actual testing that terrestrial food sources have enough DHA and LNA (the fatty acids in question) to support larger brains. The amount needed is not terribly large; the Mayo Clinic points out that about a tablespoon of vegetable oil does the job.



The AAT's "event" is not well attested at all; in fact, there's no evidence for it whatever.

the Savannah theory doesn't work because according to the theory. we either stood up to reduce heat or to see over the grass. so if this was such a good idea how come no other animal did it.


the water theory doesn't work because the only other animal that walks upright, another ape, still uses all four limbs for walking. it also doesn't work because humans have to learn how to swim. where as most other animals know how to swim at birth.

the Mayo Clinic points out that about a tablespoon of vegetable oil does the job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


this requires the question of how often. a day, a year, or a month.

Good point about breasts, although there is another explanation regarding that, revolving around reproduction. Immature or "squeemish" people please read no further (although I will write this in a respectful and proffessional manner).

Most animals copulate the male behind the female. Essentially, the male is drawn to the female's anual region as a sort of stimulus-come-"guiding beacon" to put it another way. When humans evolved and began to change their phisiology, other ways of reproduction seemed more viable, and didn't follow the age-old rule. So breasts (resembling "cheeks") evolved on the front of the female to "keep the male interested" as it were. It's a pretty weird theory, read into it what you will.


Aquatic Ape theory is certainly interesting, but I really don't know what to make of it. The time that has passed for evolution of the human species is acceptable for a hairy, arboreal ancestor just as easily as a hairless, aquatic one. Given the right environmental stimuli, any species can evolve quite quickly. Just look at the case study of the Peppered Moth!




Sigh.

The peppered moth
The Galapagos finches that evolved from one common ancestor
Dog breeds (ever wonder why a Labrador Retreiver looks just a little bit different from a Yorkshire Terrier, and yet they're both dogs??)
Cat breeds
in fact EVERY domestic animal breed
plant hybrids
vegetables
the fact that yes, embryos DO look almost identical during the early stages of development (I have seen this with my OWN eyes)

To deny any notion of evolution is to completely deny genetics or even basic heredity. Hereditary diseases such as haemophilia or colour blindness are very, very real and follow the exact same principle of evolution- that genetic data is passed onto offspring and carried into the following generations. Oh wait, I'm not finished my list then, am I?

Hair colour
Eye colour
RACE (to deny evolution is basically the same as saying that two African parents who have never seen an Asian person, never been to Asia, and neither have their ancestors- can easily have a Chinese child- I mean, if you don't inherit from your parents their genetic data, then that's entirely plausable, right?)
Last I checked, you don't get multicoloured people- Blue, red, purple, with green polkadots and flourescent yellow stripes? No? That's because skin colour is inherited from parents.

It was actually a Holy Man who came up with the basis for which evolution is derived- heredity. That's right, Father Gregor Mendell.


Of course you'll ignore all this because everyone else is wrong and you are completely right because some guy in an expensive suit and a big book told you so.

But if it's OK with you, I'll stick with evolution over a theory that says we're all derived from an incestuous relationship between the children of a man with a missing rib and a woman made from the man's missing rib (essentially meaning she IS the man!).

I think the only animal without sweat glands is the pig. Please correct me if I am wrong.

LMAO! Very true.

I think you are wright several species of animals but only one man. they may look like us but they are not related to us.


quote name='Zareste' date='Dec 31 2007, 03:12 AM' post='2066540']
Here's what my observations lead me to believe: Humans did not originate from any single location or any single species. Biologists and archeologists are noticing how vastly different all of our ancestors are

They might as well be different species.
I noticed, the further back in history you go, the more unique our ancestors appeared, and the more spread-out they were across the planet. Each had their own story of their origins - usually a race of humanoids from the sky or under the Earth spawning them - and no historical or archeological indication that they came from Africa or Mesopotamia. Many existed during the same time periods, or with gigantic gaps between their time period and the time periods of other humanoids in their location.

I think all these humanoids showed up under their own circumstances, possibly from different species, and collided to become a common humanoid. Darwin might have been about certain Africans coming from apes, but that doesn't account for everyone. One civilization could have come from dolphins - it's a matter of finding out which one. Another civilization (I can't remember which) had a very close resemblance to otters in its early years
[/quote]

Touche`. I repeated hearsay without backing it up. After reading your site more thoroughly, I can understand the point that it's skirting the edge of solid science, to put it politely. Thanks for the counterpoints you have made.

dogs that is why they pant. and there are others.

I personally have to dismiss this theory, all you have to do is look at the staggering evidence against it.

This is often said, even by people who should know better (although often they say "don't have functional sweat glands" which is closer to accurate but still not quite). What pigs don't have is twofold; like most mammals other than humans and a few other primates they have few eccrine sweat glands, which are the better sweat glands for temperature regulation (more on my site about why). Pigs have a lot of apocrine sweat glands, but these aren't so good for sweat-cooling and in pigs they aren't triggered as easily by temperature as they are in some other mammals. Most mammals don't cool by sweating very well; instead they use panting, or wallowing, or just stay out of heat as much as possible, and rest in hot periods. Generally they use some combination of all -- which we do as well when you think about it.



Per day. Sorry, I should've pointed that out.



Actually, it's likely we had a variety of reasons we used bipedalism, just as we see bipedalism used for a variety of reasons in other primates. The chief -- but not only -- reason seems to be in food-getting. BTW, there is no "savanna theory" in the sense that AAT proponents suggest. Unlike their idea, mainstream ideas are not environmentally deterministic, and it really makes no sense that the world's supreme environmental generalist got that way through adaptation to a specific environment. Mainstream theories mostly deal with food-getting and social interaction and how those things allowed for adaptations that allowed us to live in many different envonments, including savannas of course.

Very interesting, can you give us a source for that info please, Im uite interested in Human Evolution.

Yeah. We didn't descend from dolphins. The only credence I can give to the aquatic ape theory is the possibility that some groups of apes foraged in the sea rather than on dry land.

My site has a lot of this as well as sources, but it is just concerned with critiquing the AAT, so the info it provides about human evolution in general is really just in passing. For a good general beginning, I still think Nancy Tanner's 1981 book, On Becoming Human, is really good and apropos even though it's pretty old by now. Virtually everything it said -- much of it fairly new and somewhat controversial at the time -- has been further supported by study after study with new facts. It's also widely available, in many public libraries as well as used book stores. I don't know who might be the best read for a modern overall view (sorry). I do get asked that so I really should look around more to have a decent answer ready.

One problem you will tend to find when you look at the field is that very often books trying to cover a general theory of human evolution are either written by or mostly about "bones and stones" people. While it might seem that this would be the best approach, to do the field justice you have to cover much more than that, and these folks too often are too specialised. So you either have rare people like Tanner (a cultural anthropologist with physical anthro training) or journal articles.

Sorry I don't have a better definitive-style answer, but if you have specific questions you could email me (the feedback mailto link on my site is the best way to get in touch with me) and I can often answer.

A book I'd recommend is Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. Again, it's an older book, but written by a zoologist who grants brilliant insight into much human behavior.

From the inside book flap:

"A startling view of man, stripped of the facade we try so hard to hide behind." In view of man's awesome creativity and resourcefulness, we may be inclined to regard him as descended from the angels, yet, in his brilliant study, Desmond Morris reminds us that man is relative to the apes--is in fact, the greatest primate of all. With knowledge gleaned from primate ethnology, zoologist Morris examines sex, child-rearing, exploratory habits, fighting, feeding, and much more to establish our surprising bonds to the animal kingdom and add substance to the discussion that has provoked controversy and debate the world over. Natural History Magazine praised The Naked Ape as "stimulating . . . thought-provoking . . . [Morris] has introduced some novel and challenging ideas and speculations." "He minces no words," said Harper's. "He lets off nothing in our basic relation to the animal kingdom to which we belong. . . He is always specific, startling, but logical."

Not entirely true .. near birth babies placed horizontally with their bellies in water will do a swimming like motion based on a reflex like action. There are other reflexes like a stepping reflex too though, where babies will make stepping motion if you hold them in standing like position. But then.. human babies can't even hold their own head upright at birth.. a little bit much to expect a swimming demo

As far as bipedalism.. I personally prefer the carrying / tool use theory (ok I'm generalizing a few theories here, but they differ mostly in details). We found something that improved our feeding efficiency (hunting / gathering.. take your pick) more by not using our hands for speed of movement (as extra legs)but for utility in carrying.

1- Nearly every other savannah animal is in fact taller than us, and so doesn't have to stand on its hind legs to be above the tall grass. It already is. Bear in mind that Australopithecine was probably about 3 feet tall. They probably came down from the trees due to competition from baboons and other contemporary old world monkeys, and found a new niche on the ground.


2- Humans have to learn to do a lot of things, not just swim. Walking also comes naturally to many baby animals, and yet it takes humans about a year to do this. it takes even longer for a human to be able to even mature and fend for itself- about 17 years and even then that's highly debatable! This is down to the evolution of parental care- the lengthening of how long the baby stays with its parents. This is also why humans tend to have one offspring as opposed to a larger litter. It tends to be that animals that hunt have smaller litters and longer parental care.

1- Nearly every other savannah animal is in fact taller than us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


no their not. most savannah animals and for that matter most animals are smaller than us.

I don't see any scientific basis for the 'Humans Evolved from Dolphins' theory.

A semi-aquatic lifestyle might have contributed to some of the unique characteristics of humans -- hairlessness, tear ducts, etc...

But I still need to something tangible to but the Aquatic Ape Theory. Aside from wading in shallows, or sitting in a hot spring like a Japanese snow macaque, primates don't care for water. Living like an otter, for example, would be possible but unlikely.

Actually that is one of the last books I'd ever recommend. Morris is pretty good with non-human animals, and I understand he has been a fantastic mentor and encouragement to some primate researchers, but whenever he starts talking about humans he goes right off the deep end. I don't know why.



I should point out that over the years the AAT proponents have gone from suggesting an otter-like semi-aquatic existence to simple wading and a bit of swimming or diving, but they create more problems for themselevs when they do so rather than alleviate them. For one thing the amount of "aquaticness" is never defined (as it is in any science; as it needs to be in fact); ever since Hardy, who suggested an improbable amount of aquaticism for an impossible length of time, the proponents have been very coy about doing this vital first step. Then they simply change their tune to suit whatever a critic says, changing it back for the next critic, and so on. I've referred to this as "Zing!ability", and talk about it on my site. The other part is that they are also very coy about just which aquatic mammals have these characteristics they (inaccurately) say we share with aquatic animals. The animals they are talking about are whales, serenia (dugongs and manatees) and seals, and it becomes obvious why they are shy about mentioning them. These animals have all been highly or fully aquatic for several times longer than hominids have existed. And that's where the problem of "just wading" and shoreline living lies; it was highly unlikely that one would get the traits of a whale, serenia, or seal by living for 20-25 millions years as aquatic as an otter (Hardy's idea), but it's simply silly to suggest that one would get those charactristics simply by shoreside living and a touch of swimming and wading. And of course the characteristics they say are shared between these animals and humans aren't similar at all actually. I describe all this more fully on my site, for those who are interested.

One other thing is that the supposed primate dislike for water has long been overstated; a number of primates do some wading, some swim well and even dive (proboscis monkeys and macaques, for instance, esp. the crab-eating macaque), and even common chimps wade, even though people used to mistakenly describe them as "hydrophobic".

the two things i have heard that support this theory is

1 our hair what little we have is pointed the same as whales. but since we stand up, i think gravity could explain that.


2 that we have a layer of blubber(fat) every place. but since we have given up our hair, we would need a layer of blubber.


so the two biggest things that support this theory is explainable with out this theory.

The lost of hair can be also explain by natural selection. People with less hair are more attractive.

Definitely a good point. People seem to be forgetting how evolution works (and since this is a controversial topic, take that to mean how it is currently theorized to work). Traits become prominent only if the individuals who developed them as mutations or small genetic drifts breed. Therefore, if less hair was attractive, then those who were less hairy would breed more, and eventually you'd end up with hairless apes who, by this time, have starting to wear clothing and make fire, thus eliminating the chance that hairiness would be bred back into the population as it would not be needed.

All in all, this is a ridiculous theory, sorry to say. Though we hate to admit it, we're just big apes, walking around like any ape, but in an environment largely altered by ourselves. We are most certainly NOT dolphins, nor did we ever return to the sea except to fish (what, you say? We don't need to be aquatic to eat fish? Such nonsense! I must be an idiot to suggest that.)

Living in close proximity to water is universal - life is more sparse in the deserts than it is around lakes and rivers and in places with high rainfall. Carbon-based lifeforms as exist on Earth consist hugely of water and have a high dependency on it. Plant life, the fundamental source of energy at the base of all food hierarchies due to the fact that they capture said energy in the first place, especially require water. So plants grow near water, then come the herbivores, then the omnivores, then the carnivores, until an overwhelming percentage of lifeforms and species populate around water sources. Humans are no different.

I disagree on the basis that the argument is circular: You two are saying that we gradually evolved to be hairless because we gradually evolved with an attraction for hairlessness because we gradually evolved to be hairless. So, why the attraction for hairlessness? What made hairlessness better for survival? Admittedly, I would submit to you that we have evolved to a point where "attractiveness" can be counter to survivability, but I doubt that was the case when our ancestors were still hair-covered.



"Ridiculous" is not really a valid critique. I would say "unsupported" and perhaps "ill defined" would make for better adjectives.

Last point: What part of AAT states that humans evolved from dolphins?

Hrm, you're right, I could have sworn the first post had something about the dolphin thing. My mistake. xD

Why the attraction of female peacocks to massive, colorful tails on males? Those huge tails are certainly a detriment to the male birds' survival. But the bigger the tail, the more females, even though the bigger the tail the more noticeable to predators and the harder it is to move around. Therefore, the males with the BIGGEST tails usually get picked off and don't pass on their genes, regulating the tail size. With the introduction of clothing and fire, there was nothing that picked off the more hairless apes, and therefore nothing to regulate the hairiness.

Caught in something I usually criticize - I normally reserve such harsh terms for those who believe in angels and werewolves as defined by mythology. However, I think here it is actually deserved; this is not plausible alternative to the currently accepted theories of human evolution.