Re: grasp on the aquatic hypothesis

Here is something more realistic on current AAT thinking:

http://www.sfu.ca/~csmith/aat.html

Aquatic Ape (non)Theory

If you were among the unfortunate crowd who spent a good amount of time
listening to visiting lecturer Elaine Morgan recently,
regarding the 'Aquatic Ape Theory', be advised of the following points.

1. Aquatic Ape Theory has been scientifically reviewed, and, despite
what was presented at this lecture, it has been found to be severely
wanting. AAT is not a 'credible alternative theory'; it is what is
known as a post-hoc accommodative argument. Strictly speaking AAT does
not really have a coherent body of theory, only a few disassociated
(non)explanations for a few biological characteristics of the genus
Homo. People should be aware that AAT is NOT 'mainstream' or 'a viable
alternative' as claimed at the lecture.
2. AAT is poorly regarded because it is a poor explanatory device. It
is poorly regarded because it has been examined and found to be
invalid. It is not poorly regarded because of some scientific cover-up
or paranoia. It is not poorly regarded because scientists cannot accept
change. Scientific knowledge does change, all the time, and it has been
pointed out that science is the worst place to try to hide anything
because fraud will be exposed through experiment. AAT is simply a
theory that has been evaluated (and ditched) by most serious
anthropologists.
3. The presentation on 14 October is an embarrassment to Simon Fraser
University, and the sponsoring hosts. How this pop/crypto/science
'theory' was given equal billing with real research efforts is beyond
me. The fact that the 'theory' was included in a series of lectures
dealing with darwinian processes (The Institute of Humanities' 'Old
Minds and Bodies in New Worlds: A Darwinian Perspective on Our Past,
Present and Future' lectures) is a travesty, as AAT crumbles when
examined for internal darwinian logic. Unfortunately, having the
speaker lecture on AAT was akin to having SFU sponsor Erich von Daniken
to speak about spaceship depictions in Maya tombs.
Here's a point to consider when evaluating AAT. I did not learn this
point from some academic overlord with an anti-AAT agenda; I learned it
while trying to avoid becoming crocodile food in Africa. When I spent
several months with a team at Lake Turkana, Kenya, investigating some
of the most important early hominid sites in the world, one of our
overriding concerns -- while swimming, bathing, or catching fish with a
net -- was to watch out for crocodiles in the shallows. A croc can be
on you, crush your legs in its jaws, and drag you under to drown before
you have time to screech for help.
The fact that crocodiles co-existed in time and space with early
hominids is a colossal blow to AAT, which does not explain what
advantages early humans would have gained by spending time in
crocodile-populated waters; an environment where they could not make
fires, throw stones or sticks, use other tools, or have any hope
whatever of escaping the most common predator. A troop of early
hominids wading in a lakeshore or swampy forest would best be described
as a crocodile banquet. The cute, feel-good images of babies swimming
freely in a pool, shown in the AAT video, have nothing to do with the
real situation of predator avoidance in Africa. Ask the Dasenich or
Turkana people who live around Lake Turkana: only visiting maniacs swim
in that lake.
There's much else to say, but I have a 650-word limit. Please keep in
mind, the 'savanna hypothesis' has indeed been largely abandoned, but
that does NOT validate AAT a priori. Neither is AAT validated because
of the common sentiment that 'it is someone's opinion, and everyone is
entitled to an opinion'. Opinion is not the same thing as scientific
theory.
The damage of this lecture was to those who came to the lecture
expecting, and possibly believing, that AAT was a viable body of
theory. It is not, and it does not deserve that label.

Cheers,
Cameron M. Smith






Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Does Elaine Morgan or Alister Hardy directly say what species they think
> went through an aquatic phase? I know there is a several million year fossil
> gap, but I'm curious as to which apes may have had the possibility of being
> thrust into the aquatic situation. Also, is Australopithecene supposed to be
> the direct hominid descendent of the aquatic apes? I've only read Elaine
> Morgans "Scars of Evolution", and am currently reading "Survival of the
> Fattest". Still trying to get a detailed grasp on the aquatic ape
> hypothesis. David B
>
> - Hardy thought the littoral phase happened some 10 or more Ma (in 1960 it
> was believed that humans & apes split 10-15 Ma).
> - Elaine used to believe it happened +- immediately after the H/P split &
> that apiths were post-semi-aquatic.
> - Apiths are primitive hominids, no closer to humans than to chimps or
> gorillas AFAICS. Our semi-aquatic phase has nothing to do with apiths: they
> have no ext.nose, no very long legs, no superb handiness & tool use, no
> large brain , no dense bones, no ear exostoses, no loss of curved phalanges,
> no dentitional reduction etc. Most if not all of these typically Homo
> features (read: semi-aquatic) seem to have started +- 2.5-2 Ma in the fossil
> record (which may be incomplete), roughly coinciding with the diaspora of
> Homo (which no doubt happened along coasts, rivers & rivers). I guess the
> sea level lowerings (ice ages) had something to do with it. Not unlikely
> different hominid & perhaps even pongid populations adapted to the tree-poor
> "new" territories on the drying continental shelves, they probably got
> parallel adaptations (handiness, tool use, larger brain, less climbing
> etc.), but only one of these survived.
> - Early hominids & pongids (15-5 Ma?) already were aquarboreal (aqua=water,
> arbor=tree), ie, lived in flooded/mangrove/swamp forests, where they climbed
> arms overhead & swam & waded on 2 & 4 legs in swamps, but at best only
> rarely dived.
>
> --Marc

.

Relevant Pages