Aquatic Ape Theory

[The Introvert]

I find it interesting that nobody has brought this up yet...

Here's a TED talk with Elaine Morgan (who coincidentally also wrote Scars of Evolution, attempting to prove the hypothesis).

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw

Wiki explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape


This is actually a decent link with some good evalutaions:
http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/index.htm

There are some compelling arguments, IMO; specifically the correlation between hairlessness of pachyderms (and other mammals) and aquatic ancestors.

These are obiously not unbiased representations of the hypothesis, and I am aware of the parsimonious nature (or lack thereof) of it. I just think it would be interesting to see what other members think of this.

I'm interested in both refuters and supporters. Hope people are interested

​

@thehabitatdoctor, @Proletar, @EyeSeeCold

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think bipedalism is warranted in both grassland, wetland (the Masai Mara comes to mind), and shoreline environments. Not aquatic. Honestly, like most generalists we're edge creatures. Edge, regardless of habitat type, is highest in species abundance and diversity. This means more microhabitat, more prey, more predators, more structural diversity, etc.

Scavenging/small scale hunting/foraging for fish, insects, shellfish, etc. is compatible with the encephalization citied in the wiki article and the idea of being edge habitat occupants.

However, I refuse to consider hair loss anything but thermoregulatory in nature, because it's coupled with the ability to sweat. Sweat is a terrestrial adaptation (and Pachyderms don't sweat). And using the descended larynx as evidence of aquatic habitat use... is horsehockey

Spoiler

I think this is evidence that TED has at least as many wacko ideas as good ones

attempting to prove the hypothesis

^BAD SCIENTIST! BAD! *squirts with tiny water bottle*

 

[The Introvert]

I think bipedalism is warranted in both grassland, wetland (the Masai Mara comes to mind), and shoreline environments. Not aquatic. Honestly, like most generalists we're edge creatures. Edge, regardless of habitat type, is highest in species abundance and diversity. This means more microhabitat, more prey, more predators, more structural diversity, etc.

Scavenging/small scale hunting/foraging for fish, insects, shellfish, etc. is compatible with the encephalization citied in the wiki article and the idea of being edge habitat occupants.

However, I refuse to consider hair loss anything but thermoregulatory in nature, because it's coupled with the ability to sweat. Sweat is a terrestrial adaptation (and Pachyderms don't sweat). And using the descended larynx as evidence of aquatic habitat use... is horsehockey

^^ Basically where I ended up. It's a classic case of correlation not implying causation (although it's still cool in its own right). The hypothesis go slaughtered because they kept changing their minds (it went from purely aquatic to wetland to edge habitats, etc. etc.). It also seems to be a panacea for the current dilemma regarding the history of man.

I think this is evidence that TED has at least as many wacko ideas as good ones
But some of the wacko ideas are fun, regardless of validity



^BAD SCIENTIST! BAD! *squirts with tiny water bottle*

No! I didn't mean PROVE the hypothesis, I meant - Look! A distraction! *runs away

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It also seems to be a panacea for the current dilemma regarding the history of man.

I didn't think there was all that much of a dilemma

No! I didn't mean PROVE the hypothesis, I meant - Look! A distraction! *runs away

Spoiler

Did someone run away?

Q3A. I'm Old School

 

[The Introvert]

I didn't think there was all that much of a dilemma
I was referring to her refuting the "man came from the savannah" principle.

Spoiler

Did someone run away?
Q3A. I'm Old School

I don't get the reference ^

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

^BAD SCIENTIST! BAD! *squirts with tiny water bottle*

I second this.

 

[The Introvert]

First and foremost, let us all understand that I am not an adherant to the hypothesis. Truthfully, I was more interested in people's opinions than anything else (although discussion is never a bad thing).

Secondly, although I just said that I don't believe it, I would like to point out that some of the points made are actually quite interesting. Just sayin'

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't get the reference ^

That's okay, just keep running.

*loads shotgun with nonlethal glitter rounds*

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

some of the points made are actually quite interesting. Just sayin'

It's more about "proving" hypotheses...

BEST SCIENTEEST EVAR!!!!!111

 

[The Introvert]

It's more about "proving" hypotheses...

BEST SCIENTEEST EVAR!!!!!111

Yes, laugh now...



One day I will be the one laughing... one day

 

[PhoenixRising]

imo, this is quite probably a valid theory. It seems ridiculous to me that this theory hasn't been taken more seriously.

The unfortunate biased nature of the human mind lends it to resist new ideas. Look at Copernican heliocentrism.. it took hundreds of years for this realistic picture of our solar system to replace the flawed Ptolemaic model. It's like Morgan says in her talk, scientists are resisting research into the aquatic ape theory for no reason besides their own personal dislike for the theory. This scenario begs the question, is this really the way we do science? Not in a sincere, objective pursuit of the truth, but based on what we believe should be true?

 

[kora]

I'm too tired to fully analyse and contribute something valid to the discussion right now. But that would be really cool if it was true. I've got this pokemon image in my head of this greyish monkey with webbed feet an stuff. Cool.

 

[The Introvert]

scientists are resisting research into the aquatic ape theory for no reason besides their own personal dislike for the theory.

I would have to disagree with this. Like I've said, SOME of the points are (at least to me) quite interesting; specifically the correlation between hairlessness of pachyderms (and other mammals) and aquatic ancestors (which doc disagrees with), and even the unique (compared to other primates) posession of body fat (which can also be explained other ways as well).

The problem is that some of the points are downright baloney ie: the descended larynx issue. With pretty much complete bullshit as one of your main points, it's difficult to take anything said seriously. Coupled with the constant realignment of the hypothesis to concur with new information, it is even MORE difficult to ascertain its validity. It's just too rough of an outline and makes too many assumptions to be considered viable at this point.

This scenario begs the question, is this really the way we do science? Not in a sincere, objective pursuit of the truth, but based on what we believe should be true?

I agree with you whole-heartedly. It honestly makes me sad to see ideas desroyed simply because others are not willing to give it a chance. Now, obviously, there are some ideas that are complete malarky. But I do not think an honest attempt at an idea (especially one with some interesting points) should be ridiculed just because of how "ridiculous" it seems. To quote Sherlock Holmes (doc's second quote in his signature would suffice as well): "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

I think one reason that the hypothesis is relegated to myth and fairy tale is because it involves mankind. People, no matter how scientific and unbiased they are, still view Homo sapiens (and I use the scientific name for a reason) as the most "important" species on earth; for this I cannot blame anyone... it is in our nature. For this reason, I believe that scientists - hell, humanity as a whole - are far less inclined to give serious consideration to a theory that makes some pretty stretched assumptions. It is not the premise as much as it is the lack of parsimony.

 

[The Introvert]

I'm too tired to fully analyse and contribute something valid to the discussion right now. But that would be really cool if it was true. I've got this pokemon image in my head of this greyish monkey with webbed feet an stuff. Cool.

Didn't cross my mind until now, but some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greig_cephalopolysyndactyly et al.) forms of syndactyly are actually dominant traits... although rare. Perhaps your image wouldn't look too far off from my avatar?

It wouldn't be presumptuous to assume that webbed fingers and toes would be beneficial to a species spending the majority of their time in/around water. Maybe it'd help with flying too.

​

*mindfuck*

 

[SLushhYYY]

So the aqua apes would build all the sand caves in the ocean and survive in those habitats while the other fish would be too stupid to create such areas. This all happening after a massive ice age of the past when the ice caps melted. And then all of a sudden we decided to come out of the sea and develop lungs ridding us of our gills...etc all while there were still apes in the trees? Something smells fishy.

If all animals had an aquatic ancestor that would make more sense.

 

[joal0503]

i was sitting around the other day on the toilet, when a very peculiar idea floated into my dome...

can we today, identify our successors in the animal kingdom? I mean think of it like this...if there were an intelligent form of life lets say just 100 million years ago, and it was making notes on our ancestors...there wouldnt be much on the "potential for intelligence" when they take a look at our buddies/ancestors...sitting around in packs, picking eachothers backs all that jazz...not too impressive.

couldnt we say the same about animals currently living today? seemingly trivial, and unimportant animals that have the potential (given an unknown amount of time to evolve) to be what we consider ourselves today?

my moneys on the koala , give it enough time, they gonna be just like us some day (but more cuddly)

the thing that fascinates me the most about these sorts of subjects, is just the amount of confidence thats slung about. we have no idea what existed 500 million years ago. we have an idea, of the remaining amounts of fossils and leftovers that have lasted this long...but just because we cant find it today, doesnt mean it didnt exist at one point long ago.

i cant say im 100%, but it would definitely make sense to some degree that humans had to adapt or came from a wet environment at one point. especially since the ' first humans to walk on earth' date seems to get pushed back further and further the more we find out.

 

[The Introvert]

So the aqua apes would build all the sand caves in the ocean and survive in those habitats while the other fish would be too stupid to create such areas. This all happening after a massive ice age of the past when the ice caps melted. And then all of a sudden we decided to come out of the sea and develop lungs ridding us of our gills...etc all while there were still apes in the trees? Something smells fishy.

If all animals had an aquatic ancestor that would make more sense.

Erm... no. No part of the hypothesis predicates that humans ever had gills. For a more scientific analysis of their proposed habitats, take a look at doc's 1st post:

wetland (the Masai Mara comes to mind), and shoreline environments

Basically, it's questioning whether or not the ancestors of humans lived in water for a significant portion of their lives. This does not mean they had gills; the complete list of questioned traits can be found both in the wiki link and in the TED lecture. Both are in the OP.

 

[Vrecknidj]

If you scour the whole site here, you'll see that I've posted a link to this book dozens and dozens of times.

I wager that far fewer than 1% of the people who use the site have bothered to get a copy and read it, but, I'll post it again.

http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Species/dp/0345408934

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Erm... no. No part of the hypothesis predicates that humans ever had gills.

Although there is the irony that on a certain timeline we did descend from aquatic critters and we do posess gills in the womb...

 

[The Introvert]

can we today, identify our successors in the animal kingdom? I mean think of it like this...if there were an intelligent form of life lets say just 100 million years ago, and it was making notes on our ancestors...there wouldnt be much on the "potential for intelligence" when they take a look at our buddies/ancestors...sitting around in packs, picking eachothers backs all that jazz...not too impressive.

What do you mean by "successors"? For a species to "dominate" the earth, surely it does not need to possess intelligence. Look at the age of dinosaurs; they "ruled the earth" far longer than humans have been around, and there is no evidence to suggest that they were all that intelligent. Hell, autotrophs seem to be doing alright too... especially considering they've been around since the beginning of life and all that. Here's something from another thread that I actually said in response to you... lol

Spoiler

However, I will admit that on several occasions (and thehabitatdoctor can attest to this) I have stated that plants are "smarter" than humans. Now, obviously, that's not exactly what I mean... however, they ARE the only organisms that have figured out how to harness the energy from the sun... (excluding some protists)... and they HAVE been around a lot longer than mammals. Really if you want to get twisted, one could argue that plants use humans to do their bidding, so to speak. Think about it. We plant them, harvest them, plant them again. What's the difference between the mutualistic relationship between the acacia tree and acacia ants, and plants and humans? We get food, we spread their seed; the ants get a home, the tree gets a better defense against giraffes. Furthermore, plants have managed to dominate the earth... WITHOUT THE ABILILTY TO MOVE. Sometimes I feel like the only person that is just astounded by this. Just think about it

It's impossible to "identify successors" because we have no way of knowing what traits will be useful in the future. For all we know, being ugly as sin and essentially blind could be the way to go in 100 million years... does this mean that bats and naked mole rats have an edge up on us?

Now, if you're talking about "intelligence", (and by this I'm assuming you mean the capacity for language, culture, structure, [traits that make humans "human"]), I would point out that orca whales, dolphins, porpoises, etc. seem to be very intelligent. Probably much more than you'd think. Difficult to ascertain the "intelligence" of a species though, particularly one that is so different than we are. Of course there are also those stinkin' primates... I also think some birds (particularly crows) are far more intelligent than most people would think.

Here are some interesting youtube videos on crows, if anyone is interested:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpgCQj-sgqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE

my moneys on the koala , give it enough time, they gonna be just like us some day (but more cuddly)

Nah, Koalas are too dependent on Eucalyptus leaves. Drug addicts.
My bet is Raccoons... bastards eat anything and live where no creature ever wants to venture. And they have little hands.

 

[The Introvert]

Although there is the irony that on a certain timeline we did descend from aquatic critters and we do posess gills in the womb...

Little do you know that I actually kept mine... All those times I fell in the mud, I was actually moistening my gills.



lol... moistening

 

[own8ge]

Very interesting!!! I'm at 8 minutes of the (TED) video, and really weird... But I begin to smell her while I watch and listen to her. I mean, I actually smell her.. what is this? Ohwell, don't answer that question. I'm to lazy to be curious about the literal explanation for this weird and awkward sensation. Unless you can explain it in a couple of sentences though. That would be sweet!

 

[joal0503]

What do you mean by "successors"? For a species to "dominate" the earth, surely it does not need to possess intelligence. Look at the age of dinosaurs; they "ruled the earth" far longer than humans have been around, and there is no evidence to suggest that they were all that intelligent. Hell, autotrophs seem to be doing alright too... especially considering they've been around since the beginning of life and all that. Here's something from another thread that I actually said in response to you... lol

absolutely agree with you there...i was getting at the sort of animals that have the potential of succeeding human behavior...so not simply intelligence as much as it is the role of creating and bullshit that we like to engage in. thats what i meant by 'successors'.

Spoiler

However, I will admit that on several occasions (and thehabitatdoctor can attest to this) I have stated that plants are "smarter" than humans. Now, obviously, that's not exactly what I mean... however, they ARE the only organisms that have figured out how to harness the energy from the sun... (excluding some protists)... and they HAVE been around a lot longer than mammals. Really if you want to get twisted, one could argue that plants use humans to do their bidding, so to speak. Think about it. We plant them, harvest them, plant them again. What's the difference between the mutualistic relationship between the acacia tree and acacia ants, and plants and humans? We get food, we spread their seed; the ants get a home, the tree gets a better defense against giraffes. Furthermore, plants have managed to dominate the earth... WITHOUT THE ABILILTY TO MOVE. Sometimes I feel like the only person that is just astounded by this. Just think about it

It's impossible to "identify successors" because we have no way of knowing what traits will be useful in the future. For all we know, being ugly as sin and essentially blind could be the way to go in 100 million years... does this mean that bats and naked mole rats have an edge up on us?

again, agree...this was the point i was getting at! that it could really be ANYTHING at this point...something as dull as a clam...as simple as a cow (i know cows arent simple)... and its sort of the reason why i get all tripped out thinking about it...it could be any one of the millions of variety of life that will someday take over our place.

Now, if you're talking about "intelligence", (and by this I'm assuming you mean the capacity for language, culture, structure, [traits that make humans "human"]), I would point out that orca whales, dolphins, porpoises, etc. seem to be very intelligent. Probably much more than you'd think. Difficult to ascertain the "intelligence" of a species though, particularly one that is so different than we are. Of course there are also those stinkin' primates... I also think some birds (particularly crows) are far more intelligent than most people would think.

Here are some interesting youtube videos on crows, if anyone is interested:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpgCQj-sgqk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE

Nah, Koalas are too dependent on Eucalyptus leaves. Drug addicts.
My bet is Raccoons... bastards eat anything and live where no creature ever wants to venture. And they have little hands.

millions of years of dieting on psychoactive substances could prove to be a fruitful evolutionary path for some lucky animal...

reeeeeeeeeeeed

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Little do you know that I actually kept mine... All those times I fell in the mud, I was actually moistening my gills.



lol... moistening

Oh.

So that's where your gills are...