Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2012, 07:42 AM
Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
I heard this for the first time last night when watching AP's mockumentary about mermaids.

I started looking further into it, and it seems to make a lot of sense; however, it also seems to be highly discredited and laughed at.

Thoughts?

Oh and link here and here.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 07:57 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Never heard of it. Sounds like crap.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:15 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
I've heard of it. Not read enough to have an opinion... Only commenting to ask how your new baby's doing? Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 08:38 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
(29-05-2012 08:15 AM)morondog Wrote:  I've heard of it. Not read enough to have an opinion... Only commenting to ask how your new baby's doing? Tongue

She's doing great, actually. Eating... a lot... which, I guess is a good thing. Smile

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
29-05-2012, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2012 10:38 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Bearded is the one to ask. Makes perfect sense to me...I AM an aquatic ape, (so say my friends anyway ... "you G.O. Rilla") Tongue

The first paragraph of the first link is not true, BTW.

"Humans differ from other primates in many ways. We have no hair; (???) unlike apes, we have body fat, (???) ..., we have speech; we can’t run but can swim. (???)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-05-2012, 09:41 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
(29-05-2012 08:38 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  She's doing great, actually. Eating... a lot... which, I guess is a good thing. Smile

Yum, yum, yum - healthy appetite is a good thing! Keep 'er horizontal; good for brain development. Heart
**************

I'm uncertain about that water ape thing - sounds like a questionable hypothesis - it's too specific. Changing environments require change and specificity might not allow for change. I usually think about that every time I read about some simplistic, one stop, "missing link" kind of idea. If anything at all it could be only one part of a bigger picture... possibly a fringe group that came up then didn't survive for whatever reason.

Evolution is change, and change can be complex.
***********
Having said that... it wouldn't bother me if my great, grand monkey Mom was a water monkey; I like to swim. Big Grin

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 09:49 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
We have known for quite some time now that early humans did live by the seashore and harvest from it after leaving Africa (mainly those that migrated along the coast into India, Asia, Indonesia, and Australia). Humans would have always been restricted to some nearby water source while in Africa too because water is a limiting resource for all animals. Water is actually the likely reason humans migrated out of Africa. Not searching for it mind you, but climate change meant that grasslands extended further north for a time and provided a route out of Africa that had water and food.

The Savannah Hypothesis has also taken a bit of a hit thanks to geochemical techniques (mainly the C13 technique) that indicate that our ancestors that were supposed to be living in grasslands, where still eating food from the forest. So, we have known for several years now that this hypothesis is far to simplistic.

I believe a more common view of bipedalism now is the use of tools. By further developing tool use, our ancestors selected for bipedal locomotion and improved hand dexterity (this works for males and females). This also provides a reasonable hypothesis for selection of larger brain size. The tools may have helped with hunting, gathering, food prep, and tool making, so where the tools were being used at doesn't really matter (although as I said, early populations were already going to be restricted to some water source). I am no human specialist but my guess is larger brain size also contributed to speech, and I think it is unfair to say that the other primates don't have verbal communication skills (or other animals for that matter, I mean dogs bark and lions roar don't they?).

I believe there is an example in Dawkin's "The God Delusion" about males vs females with regards to navigation. If you ask most males for directions, they are more likely to give you directions such as "Go North 1 mile and then go West for about a 1/4 of a mile and it will be there on your right." Whereas females usually give directions via landmarks "Head up the road this way until you reach the red grocery store and then turn right until you come to the third stop sign and it will be on your left." Both directions lead to the same place (and admittedly this is very simplified since both males and females may mix directions at times) but each sex seems to have a different reason for doing so. Males give directions that seem to be more appropriate for larger distances whereas females appear to give directions that are much more specific and lead to an exact location. Why? Males likely do so because of long-range hunting and gathering where communicating to another male how to get to a good hunting ground doesn't need to be very specific, it only need get them to the right area. Females on the other hand likely give directions as if they were communicating to other females on how to get to a specific food source they were gathering, like a small collection of mushrooms or fruit. In this case the directions need to be much more specific in order for the communicating female to get the recipient to the right location. This last part seems to be supported by a study (once again I think this is all in "The God Delusion" and I don't have my copy lying around) where women in a grocery store were asked to retrace their steps throughout the store and tell the surveyor the location of specific food items. The females generally remembered the locations of the foods with the highest calories the easiest.

I agree with the idea that selection of males that inhibited females would not work, but I had never heard of such a preposterous idea within the Savannah hypothesis prior to the first article. Males in human societies (and most primate societies for that matter) are the protectors and this is the reason for males being larger and stronger. Males also hunt and need to be more capable of traveling larger distances without becoming fatigued. At the same time, females have to be capable too. Giving birth is no small task and the selection on females would have centered around the ability to be better at gathering (perhaps this is why females are often smarter than their male counterparts?).

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
29-05-2012, 11:05 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Thanks, Bearded Dude, but what about the other claims?

Also, how do you feel about the hypothesis? Is it ludicrous? Or, is it plausible?

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2012, 11:36 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
" All primates and land mammals are involuntary breathers only. None have the capability to hold their breath."
This sounds like bullshit. I have seen pictures and videos of chimps smoking cigarettes and puffing out there cheeks while holding their breath.


"One of the main fears about babies being born under water is that they will drown, but they don’t, this is because of what’s called the diving reflex. The human diving reflex, that if water is on the face, the throat closes off, is strongest in new born babies. Babies are very at home in the water and amongst coastal people swimming is so natural it is common for children to learn to swim and dive under water before they can walk."

There are a few points to make here. 1) in babies, they are resistant to choking because the voice box is at the top of the throat and does not descend for several months. This is the reason why speech is delayed until ~1 year old, because the voice box at the top of the throat makes it impossible to express common vowel sounds. 2) this un-descended voicebox at the top of the throat prevents choking in babies by closing off the windpipe from the throat. This way a baby that is drinking milk won't choke to death, because both are not open at the same time, like when we drink. My son often spits up while lying on his back and most times he just spits up, gets it all out and goes back to playing. Whereas you or I could drown in our own vomit if we were lying on our back. 3) babies also come out of the womb without fluid in their lungs because of this closed off throat but the fluid is throughout their digestive system. 4) babies also don't drown when born in water because they breathe through the umbilical cord. So, they can't drown until it is cut.

As for the chimp and human brain part. That is what we refer to as Neoteny . Humans retain the overall shape and proportions of the baby chimp skull into adulthood, in a similar way that small yippy dogs retain puppy-like traits. Sometimes these juvenile traits are more advantageous and are retained.

I am sure that things link Omega-3 fatty acids and Iodine promote brain growth, but all of the primates have pretty large brains, and the common ape ancestor was not a marine mammal. So it would be special pleading to say that the common human ancestor was reliant upon a marine diet in order to grow a large brain but the common ape ancestor did not need it. Like I said, there is really no doubt we were restricted to water in some respects and humans have certainly been taking advantage of marine harvests for quite some time (middens show large quantities of shellfish and fish consumption for coastal communities). Neanderthals were certainly land-locked and actually had larger brains that modern man, so Omega-3, Iodine, and a marine diet are not necessary it would seem.
It has some pieces in it that are likely contributing something to human evolution, but as the main reason why, it sounds like BS. It would also be special pleading to say that a quadraped used marine habitats to help them attain bipedality when numerous other land mammals who converted to marine mammals did not attain it. Seals, whales, dolphins, etc, all developed the front limbs further and lost the hind limbs. I tend to lean more towards this being a bunch of bunk.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
29-05-2012, 11:42 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Well, technically all of us had fish as our ancestors, so it is no surprise that we are a little fishy here and there, most evident in embryonic development. I would say the theory is questionable, as bipedalism, hairlessness and the larynx can also be evolved without the need for an aquatic environment. There are other land animals which have these traits too.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like robotworld's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Why do people pray ? Bucky Ball 28 386 06-07-2014 06:22 PM
Last Post: pablo
  Big Hairy People! Raptor Jesus 21 432 28-04-2014 07:32 PM
Last Post: Bows and Arrows
  From where are scientific hypothesis made? I and I 114 2,605 27-09-2013 11:55 AM
Last Post: cjlr
  Do Taller People have a Shorter Life Expectancy? Indoril 21 22,605 11-09-2013 08:27 PM
Last Post: samarastt
  Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver 0 245 06-07-2013 01:24 PM
Last Post: Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver
  whats the origin of the words hypothesis and scientific theory? Erikjust 7 501 28-11-2012 01:23 AM
Last Post: morondog
  Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived toge Erxomai 25 2,277 12-11-2012 08:05 AM
Last Post: Diablo666
Forum Jump: