Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

Elaine Morgan's Aquatic Ape Theory

72 posts in this topic

Here's a little something I stumbled on a few days ago. I searched in UM's site and I haven't found any topic about this subject. Elaine Morgan's theory states a possible aquatic phase may have occured during the evolution chain between apes and humans, more specifically, a possible reason why we became bipedal. She's not an Archeologist nor a scientist either. That's what makes the idea so skeptic worthy. It does sound off the path, but I have to admit, many of her observations does stand up.

She also wrote several books about it. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"Elaine Morgan (born Elaine Floyd 1920) is a Welsh feminist writer, best known for her television work, including screenwriting most of the episodes of Dr. Finlay's Casebook. She is also the author of several books about the aquatic ape hypothesis, among them The Descent of Woman, The Aquatic Ape, The Scars of Evolution, The Descent of the Child, The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and her latest The Naked Darwinist which discussed the reasons why there is so little discussion of aquatic scenarios in the academic literature. She also authored Falling Apart and Pinker's List."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Morgan_(writer)

I've also found a Discovery Channel documentary dated in 1998 about the subject on Youtube.

Aquatic Ape - Part 1: Here..

Aquatic Ape - Part 2: Here.

Aquatic Ape - Part 3: Here.

Aquatic Ape - Part 4: Here.

Aquatic Ape - Part 5: And here.

It's an interesting watch. Anyone ever hear about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her hypothesis has been dismissed because it relys on what amounts to blatantly wrong information. There are already numerous threads showing all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Her hypothesis has been dismissed because it relys on what amounts to blatantly wrong information. There are already numerous threads showing all this.

UM's search engine didn't provide any existing threads. Can you provide links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison: Henry Lincoln, one of the chief perpetrators of the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" non-sense was also a script-writer for the BBC in the 1960s*.

Not sure how being a scriptwriter leads to any expertise in "documentary" writing, but these two give strong examples it doesn't.

--Jaylemurph

*He wrote the dullest episode ever, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure how being a scriptwriter leads to any expertise in "documentary" writing, but these two give strong examples it doesn't.

*Shrugs* I couldn't say either. I'm neighter for or against the idea. just thought that certain explanations made sense. Any hypothesises always sound crazy at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Shrugs* I couldn't say either. I'm neighter for or against the idea. just thought that certain explanations made sense. Any hypothesises always sound crazy at first.

I'm right there with you. I think it's interesting, but I just don't know enough to evaluate it personally, and everyone I know who can dismisses it.

I mean, as someone who's involved with both dramatic writing and critical writing about gender issues, I *know* I have no business writing articles about comparative and evolutionary biology. so I'm fascinated this person /did/. Her chutzpah alone makes me curious.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is still up for debate and has not been fully disproven in any standard. So please dont close your minds to something with such evidence. Even if a couple of fancy degree's tell you other wise

Edited by AncientTheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i believe disproved or not that it should not just be thrown away nothing else has every thing completely there and no other theory can explain every thing perfectly! But the evidence is there so don't act as if it is dumb or unjustified to question what the population believes. I know for a fact that science is not all so perfect and dandy as every one wishes it to be knowing this would let you know that even the most controversial theories have meaning but this is to much to ignore. The only reason it has been ignored is because the people that put there sweat and blood into the research of evolution as we know it would not just give up what they put there whole worthless lives into so they throw down every thing that comes along and tries to prove what they think same goes for every one but dont disregard every thing because some silly archealogist say so.

The point is (as I'm sure mattshark can tell better than I) the evidence /isn't/ there. That's why scientific theories fall out of use or (as in this case) never catch on.

And I'm quite sure going around believing things because most of the population does is a mistake.

--Jaylemurph

edit: Matt, I don't know how you do it; it strikes me that so few people on this forum actually understand what science /is/ and how it works that if I were a scientician, I'd just be reduced to shouting a lot.

Edited by jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh. yes the evidence isn't is it well is there solid proof evidence for any thing. name something that i cant disprove with less then 3 sentences. Can you please i'll even add in some evidence that says its not true k is this a deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The point is (as I'm sure mattshark can tell better than I) the evidence /isn't/ there. That's why scientific theories fall out of use or (as in this case) never catch on.

And I'm quite sure going around believing things because most of the population does is a mistake.

--Jaylemurph

edit: Matt, I don't know how you do it; it strikes me that so few people on this forum actually understand what science /is/ and how it works that if I were a scientician, I'd just be reduced to shouting a lot.

Hmm yes it is a mistake and thats where the flaws of what every one around you dont know. Even the smartest minds are tamed by the sheer will of the majority and not wanting to look like a baboon. But is there full proof evidence for any thing, and is there full proof evidence disregarding everything that someone else has theorized experimented and concluded on? Also I believe what you Bolded is what you dont know about i was referring to what you and matt most willingly throw around, where do you get your info from , how about this

(And I'm quite sure going around believing things because most of the population does is a mistake.

--Jaylemurph)? jaylemurph I believe thats exactly what you are doing, there is no doubt that plains evolution has just as many or more holes in it than aquatic ape but yet you believe what the majority says.

Dear jaylemurph,

With all respect intended you are not a Scientist are you? How would you for absolute positivity know that something is and is not true in the field of science or evolution?

I am no scientist and i am no evolutionist but if i do say so plains evolution is as unlikely as aquatic ape.

PS: What is a (scientician)? because i do believe its not a word. I've ever heard of.

Also not to leave out matt,

Are you in fact a scientist with a degree or other source of false knowledge in a certificate form? Because i would love to hear about every bit of knowledge you possess on this field of archealogy and evolution, Please if you would share!

Edited by AncientTheory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also one thing in natural selection standards as dumb human beings walking around eating, drinking and sleeping predators should have picked us off by the first 10 thousand years of our existance. So how did we survive could, and i dare say it water have provided or defencless asses with protection from predators. Oh an damn has any one ever thought of possible not being a predatory animal at all we would have been smart enough to know we couldn't take on a pack of lions that would have enterupted our hunting on there animals of prey even with spears, and numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm yes it is a mistake and thats where the flaws of what every one around you dont know.

I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Even the smartest minds are tamed by the sheer will of the majority and not wanting to look like a baboon.

Well, that's patently not true. There wouldn't be any advancement, full stop, if that were true. Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein all taught things that went against the "will of the majority" and didn't let "looking like a baboon" stop them.

But is there full proof evidence for any thing, and is there full proof evidence disregarding everything that someone else has theorized experimented and concluded on?

Again, I'm struggling against your language to understand what you mean here. Is there "full proof evidence for any thing": do you mean "is there fool-proof evidence for anything" or "is there full proof, evidence for any thing"? The answer is both is yes. There are plenty of scientific processes and laws that are completely understood. Uhh, chemical reactions come to mind.

"Is there fool-proof evidence against everything someone else has concluded?" I think this was the second half of what you were trying to ask. If so, then you don't quite understand how logic works and how it is applied to science. You can't prove a negative; you can't prove something is false.

Also I believe what you Bolded is what you dont know about i was referring to what you and matt most willingly throw around, where do you get your info from

Again, I just can't grasp what you're trying to say. Just too many run-on clauses on top of each other. If it comes to proof against this aquatic ape theory, I'm again going to point out my above statement. It isn't a question of proving it's false as much as is it proving something else --here, standard models of hominid evolution -- is true. I can point you to any number of evolution sites for that.

If it /is/ about proving your theory true, then the onus is on you to come up with proof for that in this discussion.

jaylemurph I believe thats exactly what you are doing, there is no doubt that plains evolution has just as many or more holes in it than aquatic ape but yet you believe what the majority says.

Six of ten people in America don't believe in evolution. I'm not advocating a popular belief in my country. You're right, in some respects, that ultimately it does come down to trusting other people, and in this case I'm going to trust not only people better educated and better trained in this specific field than I am, but people who's opinion coincides with what I've already learned and who also conform to standard scientific model... a model that was designed and functions outside of mere belief. It works by reproducing facts.

From your posting, I think it's clear you don't understand what that is or how it works exactly, or there wouldn't be -- ipso facto -- this sort of debate on "proof" and how it works.

With all respect intended you are not a Scientist are you? How would you for absolute positivity know that something is and is not true in the field of science or evolution?

I may not be a scientist, but I am an academic. I've taken multiple science classes and understood them. I have friends and colleagues who are scientists and I talk things over with them. I read a variety of scientific journals, just to keep a toe in the latest developments, esp. in subjects like archaeology and anthropology that are tangential to my own field.

I am no scientist and i am no evolutionist but if i do say so plains evolution is as unlikely as aquatic ape.

But if you don't understand the science and the facts behind it, how much is that opinion worth? I mean, I know what I know, as it were, and how much it's worth -- and I would remind you that rather than pontificating as if I were the only source of knowledge, I started out this discussion deferring to people I know could better handle it. And I still do. If matt or copascetic or anyone else with a superior knowledge of the subject wants to refute or correct anything here, I invite them to.

PS: What is a (scientician)? because i do believe its not a word. I've ever heard of.

It's a joke. The word doesn't really exist in English except as a piece of satire.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I read the Wiki and will go "in seach of" other information but I am confused.

I am gathering that she is stating that we/humans were aquatic at one time in our evolution, correct?

When were we aquatic? At what stage? The article/Wiki mentions one of her reasons being that us walking upright would be better suited in the deep.

Wouldn't that have put us/humans in the water AFTER we had begun using tools and such?

Just need some clarification on her hypothesis. How is she justifying this?

:)

HN

*off to review thread Mattshark linked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Well, that's patently not true. There wouldn't be any advancement, full stop, if that were true. Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein all taught things that went against the "will of the majority" and didn't let "looking like a baboon" stop them.

Again, I'm struggling against your language to understand what you mean here. Is there "full proof evidence for any thing": do you mean "is there fool-proof evidence for anything" or "is there full proof, evidence for any thing"? The answer is both is yes. There are plenty of scientific processes and laws that are completely understood. Uhh, chemical reactions come to mind.

"Is there fool-proof evidence against everything someone else has concluded?" I think this was the second half of what you were trying to ask. If so, then you don't quite understand how logic works and how it is applied to science. You can't prove a negative; you can't prove something is false.

Again, I just can't grasp what you're trying to say. Just too many run-on clauses on top of each other. If it comes to proof against this aquatic ape theory, I'm again going to point out my above statement. It isn't a question of proving it's false as much as is it proving something else --here, standard models of hominid evolution -- is true. I can point you to any number of evolution sites for that.

If it /is/ about proving your theory true, then the onus is on you to come up with proof for that in this discussion.

Six of ten people in America don't believe in evolution. I'm not advocating a popular belief in my country. You're right, in some respects, that ultimately it does come down to trusting other people, and in this case I'm going to trust not only people better educated and better trained in this specific field than I am, but people who's opinion coincides with what I've already learned and who also conform to standard scientific model... a model that was designed and functions outside of mere belief. It works by reproducing facts.

From your posting, I think it's clear you don't understand what that is or how it works exactly, or there wouldn't be -- ipso facto -- this sort of debate on "proof" and how it works.

I may not be a scientist, but I am an academic. I've taken multiple science classes and understood them. I have friends and colleagues who are scientists and I talk things over with them. I read a variety of scientific journals, just to keep a toe in the latest developments, esp. in subjects like archaeology and anthropology that are tangential to my own field.

But if you don't understand the science and the facts behind it, how much is that opinion worth? I mean, I know what I know, as it were, and how much it's worth -- and I would remind you that rather than pontificating as if I were the only source of knowledge, I started out this discussion deferring to people I know could better handle it. And I still do. If matt or copascetic or anyone else with a superior knowledge of the subject wants to refute or correct anything here, I invite them to.

It's a joke. The word doesn't really exist in English except as a piece of satire.

--Jaylemurph

Ahh and here i would post a list

1 i never said i was a scientist and i offered a valuable opinion.

2 i simply asked questions about what you knew

3 if you dont know english, then please dont speak it.

4 oh, and what is the field you are in?

5 i never said every smart person with great ideas was swayed by there peers just most of them, farther more why do you question my opinion that nothing can be proven right or wrong.

6 soo, i was saying that proof is nothing unless you can prove that the proof is proof of what you are doing thats a very fragile subject that not every one understands but non the less its a very true one can you prove every thing?

7 i never said or asked anything about how many people believe in evolution i just said that most scientist are so afraid of being wrong and being a laughing stock that they don't make theories that can acualy get any where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is still up for debate and has not been fully disproven in any standard. So please dont close your minds to something with such evidence. Even if a couple of fancy degree's tell you other wise

It does not need to be disproven. That is a fallacy. It however does have be falsifiable and the evidence does falsify this. There is absolutely however no evidence to support this idea what so ever. It comes down to Morgan having some ideas about us and other primates that are not true and not AT this is not a theory, it a hypothesis don't imagine the two are the same because they are in fact some distance apart.

Science is not about proof, it is about evidence.

This has been discussed in other thread likes the one linked.

AT, what do you think would happen to a large predator walking through most cities in the world (not all)? It would get shot.

But if you want predation

Tanzania - 1995-2005: 500+ eaten by lions

Sundarbans, India and Bangladesh: 50-250 people a year eaten by tigers.

Africa: Nile crocodiles are estimated to kill near 1000 people each year.

Papua New Guinea: Estimated 100+ people a year killed by salt water crocodiles each year.

Mumbai India: Leopards attack the citizens at night in the city.

We still get a decent level of predation upon us as a species.

Humans do have defence though, tools. We can use weapons (even something as simply as a rock). We are also pack animals. Being in a group is defence in its self. How many animals do lions take at once? If there is a group it is extremely doubtful they will target a whole group, they'll target 1 animal. We also tend to be much better climbers than lions.

You not believing in evolution is clear proof you are not a scientist. Evolution is an observed fact get over.

There is a tons of evidence for Savannah theory. You know, like palaeontology.

You think we'd suffer predation on a savannah how about what would happen in the water!

Crocodiles, the number 1 predator of humans. Able to hide in under 50cm of water. Far more deadly than a lion.

Ocean maybe? Well hypothermia. Even in the tropics you constantly lose more heat than you produce in water. You will get hypothermia. Also how fast can you swim? 6km/h? How fast does say a white shark swim? Well that would be over 40km/h what chance would we stand there?

And for the record I have a BSc (hons) in Zoology with Marine Zoology and I am currently doing my MSc in Animal Behaviour.

And before you dare call it false knowledge I suggest you try and attain that.

I would also suggest AT that you don't even have a high school level knowledge of science from your post above.

Jayle: I do get frustrated mate. I try and remain calm though, it is very hard at times though.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Edited by Darkwind
Personal insults

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

A few questions

1) Do you even know what evolution is?

2) How many cheetah deaths are there each year?

3) Do people still live on African Savannah?

Whether you believe me or not I do not care less.

Edited by Darkwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 if you dont know english, then please dont speak it.

I /do/ know English, very, very well, as well most of the languages (like Latin, French, and German) that have had substantial contributions to it. I've also studied post-graduate Historical/Comparative linguistics and have a degree in English Literature and Composition (specifically in Elizabethan drama).

I can say with authority your use of English is sufficiently awkward as to render parts of your posts unintelligible: your grammar usage is highly questionable (chiefly in terms of comma usage and capitalisation) and -- as I pointed out before -- your construction (specifically your overuse of run-on prepositional phrases and dependent clauses) is lamentable.

I usually stop myself from making such comments, since I don't know who speaks English fluently or not and it's impolite to comment on someone's grammar when they're speaking a foreign language. Frankly, I thought that included you. Maybe it doesn't. However, if you're going to challenge my knowledge of the language, I'd make damn sure you have the wherewithal to do so.

4 oh, and what is the field you are in?

Academically? Specifically, I'm a dramaturg who specialises in the intersection of queer studies and Elizabeth theatre. Are you asking for a CV?

5 i never said every smart person with great ideas was swayed by there peers just most of them, farther more why do you question my opinion that nothing can be proven right or wrong.

Well, of course you're going to back-pedal after the statement that no one's ever said anything clever.

Why do I question your opinion that nothing can be proven right or wrong? Because I think it's silly, or at least wildly unuseful. As for the rest of your post, unless you can do a little work to make it easily understood, I'm not answering.

--Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that thread link Matt, in that thread I found a subsequent thread link to a post of Copasetic's which makes a great deal of sense and explains quite a lot that I hadn't known before. :tu:

BTW here is the link to Copasetic's post (post #20) http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry2629858

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To the original poster: here is another topic in the Science section of the forum, that discusses more in depth why the Aquatic ape hypothesis is incorrect:

The Aquatic Ape Theory

Hmm yes it is a mistake and thats where the flaws of what every one around you dont know. Even the smartest minds are tamed by the sheer will of the majority and not wanting to look like a baboon. But is there full proof evidence for any thing, and is there full proof evidence disregarding everything that someone else has theorized experimented and concluded on? Also I believe what you Bolded is what you dont know about i was referring to what you and matt most willingly throw around, where do you get your info from , how about this

(And I'm quite sure going around believing things because most of the population does is a mistake.

--Jaylemurph)? jaylemurph I believe thats exactly what you are doing, there is no doubt that plains evolution has just as many or more holes in it than aquatic ape but yet you believe what the majority says.

Dear jaylemurph,

With all respect intended you are not a Scientist are you? How would you for absolute positivity know that something is and is not true in the field of science or evolution?

I am no scientist and i am no evolutionist but if i do say so plains evolution is as unlikely as aquatic ape.

PS: What is a (scientician)? because i do believe its not a word. I've ever heard of.

Also not to leave out matt,

Are you in fact a scientist with a degree or other source of false knowledge in a certificate form? Because i would love to hear about every bit of knowledge you possess on this field of archealogy and evolution, Please if you would share!

Would you care to point out the 'holes' in evolution? This is one of the most claimed things, these 'holes' in evolutionary theory, but no one can ever really seem to point them out.

If you are interested in knowing more about evolution, you can click on my name and visit my profile where I have lots of links discussing it. Probably many of the "holes" you will find addressed in there as well.

I dont give a **** about how many damn cheetahs die in a year or what ever i think its funny that if i say something that has the potential to make you mad your mod buddy's block what a say. Lmao this is about evolution which you know nothing about and obviously never will if you have already went threw classes about it and know this little, you'll never get any where. so what ever you can continue being h**o's i dont careand pretend you know something but i completely give up on trying to tell you your wrong! dont bother messaging me because ill just spamm it and im not attending this thread any more so talk all the **** you want!

*hug*

You sounded like you needed one.....

Edit: I see Slave2fate beat me too it ;) That's what I get for posting before finishing reading the topic :)

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont give a **** about how many damn cheetahs die in a year or what ever i think its funny that if i say something that has the potential to make you mad your mod buddy's block what a say. Lmao this is about evolution which you know nothing about and obviously never will if you have already went threw classes about it and know this little, you'll never get any where. so what ever you can continue being h**o's i dont careand pretend you know something but i completely give up on trying to tell you your wrong! dont bother messaging me because ill just spamm it and im not attending this thread any more so talk all the **** you want!

Oh AT I never asked you how many cheetahs die a year. I was asking how many people die from cheetahs a year. Though I phrased it badly hence the confusion. Cheetahs do not kill and eat people. They are not like lions and leopards.

People live with these animals now, saying that our ancestors could not is simply wrong. You just have to look at people who live with these predators day in day out. People in Tanzania and Kenya, people in the Sundarbans, the people of Papua New Guinea. Yet they do not die out.

Why exactly do I know nothing about evolution exactly (amusing to hear that from someone who uses the term evolutionist)?

You have shown nothing to show any thing I have said is wrong all you have done is shout abuse and show a great ignorance of biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It does not need to be disproven. That is a fallacy. It however does have be falsifiable and the evidence does falsify this. There is absolutely however no evidence to support this idea what so ever. It comes down to Morgan having some ideas about us and other primates that are not true and not AT this is not a theory, it a hypothesis don't imagine the two are the same because they are in fact some distance apart.

Science is not about proof, it is about evidence.

This has been discussed in other thread likes the one linked.

AT, what do you think would happen to a large predator walking through most cities in the world (not all)? It would get shot.

But if you want predation

Tanzania - 1995-2005: 500+ eaten by lions

Sundarbans, India and Bangladesh: 50-250 people a year eaten by tigers.

Africa: Nile crocodiles are estimated to kill near 1000 people each year.

Papua New Guinea: Estimated 100+ people a year killed by salt water crocodiles each year.

Mumbai India: Leopards attack the citizens at night in the city.

We still get a decent level of predation upon us as a species.

Humans do have defence though, tools. We can use weapons (even something as simply as a rock). We are also pack animals. Being in a group is defence in its self. How many animals do lions take at once? If there is a group it is extremely doubtful they will target a whole group, they'll target 1 animal. We also tend to be much better climbers than lions.

You not believing in evolution is clear proof you are not a scientist. Evolution is an observed fact get over.

There is a tons of evidence for Savannah theory. You know, like palaeontology.

You think we'd suffer predation on a savannah how about what would happen in the water!

Crocodiles, the number 1 predator of humans. Able to hide in under 50cm of water. Far more deadly than a lion.

Ocean maybe? Well hypothermia. Even in the tropics you constantly lose more heat than you produce in water. You will get hypothermia. Also how fast can you swim? 6km/h? How fast does say a white shark swim? Well that would be over 40km/h what chance would we stand there?

And for the record I have a BSc (hons) in Zoology with Marine Zoology and I am currently doing my MSc in Animal Behaviour.

And before you dare call it false knowledge I suggest you try and attain that.

I would also suggest AT that you don't even have a high school level knowledge of science from your post above.

Jayle: I do get frustrated mate. I try and remain calm though, it is very hard at times though.

I'm sure you are very smart and have all your degrees and such but do you actually understand the Aquatic Ape Theory and what it is you are trying to disprove?

It's all fine to go off on your tangent there of scientific facts but what about weeping animals? Can you name me an animal or bird that is not a marine or water creature that weeps tears? Now, not even Darwin has an answer for that one, do you? There is no other weeping primate.

I have followed the Aquatic Ape Theory for many years, since 1980 in fact, when it was called The Wading Ape Theory. I don't have all your fancy papers but I do have in depth knowledge of the actual theory and the comparisons between it and the general scientific concensus based on Desmond Morris's observations. I have also watched and read every show and book Desmond Morris has written or produced and believe me The Naked Ape is fascinating stuff BUT too much stock is taken in what Morris says and so it appears to disprove the Aquatic Ape Theory when if looked at more closely, it seems on a number of occasions Desmond Morris has made wrong conclusions of the human ape so therefore, if his answers are scrutinised, the results of evolution can have been very different.

The actual time frame is around 8 million to 3 1/2 million years ago that this change occurred for the poster who asked.

I think it has alot of merit and do think it is certainly possibly we went through these changes, that is why it remains an open and debated subject still.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure you are very smart and have all your degrees and such but do you actually understand the Aquatic Ape Theory and what it is you are trying to disprove?

It's all fine to go off on your tangent there of scientific facts but what about weeping animals? Can you name me an animal or bird that is not a marine or water creature that weeps tears? Now, not even Darwin has an answer for that one, do you? There is no other weeping primate.

Any animal with ocular muscles capable of moving the eyes in its orbits has tear ducts. Tear ducts simply lubricate the eye and help prevent invasion by foreign bodies. All primates therefore "cry". Humans are the only animals that have adapted the "cry" reflex to involve an emotional display as well.

I am not sure how how "Darwin doesn't have an answer for that". All vertebrates share a common ancestor for the origin of their eye, therefor share some similarities in their anatomy. One of these similarities is tear ducts -Which we collectively have, because we share a common ancestor (as predicted by Darwin).

I have followed the Aquatic Ape Theory for many years, since 1980 in fact, when it was called The Wading Ape Theory. I don't have all your fancy papers but I do have in depth knowledge of the actual theory and the comparisons between it and the general scientific concensus based on Desmond Morris's observations. I have also watched and read every show and book Desmond Morris has written or produced and believe me The Naked Ape is fascinating stuff BUT too much stock is taken in what Morris says and so it appears to disprove the Aquatic Ape Theory when if looked at more closely, it seems on a number of occasions Desmond Morris has made wrong conclusions of the human ape so therefore, if his answers are scrutinised, the results of evolution can have been very different.

The actual time frame is around 8 million to 3 1/2 million years ago that this change occurred for the poster who asked.

I think it has alot of merit and do think it is certainly possibly we went through these changes, that is why it remains an open and debated subject still.

The AAH is not debated by people who study human evolution and development, such as biologists and anthropologists. I'll challenge you to find anything in the AAH which isn't explained by biology or isn't better explained by the working knowledge we have of human evolution now. That the writer of this hypothesis was simply unaware of much of what was known in the field, is no excuse for the inaccuracy of the hypothesis.

Also its good to remember that just because a fiction-hungry public finds fascination in something, makes it no more true than any number of historically fictitious stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.