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
26-05-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
Humans didn’t descend from aquatic apes, of course, although our ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open plains as some anthropologists still believe.
Instead, Pleistocene Homo populations simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia (800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas), google “econiche Homo”.
–eBook “Was Man more aquatic in the past?” introd.Phillip Tobias
http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/978.../index.htm
–guest post at Greg Laden’s blog
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/0...ape-theory
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
(26-05-2013 03:33 PM)marc verhaegen Wrote:  Humans didn’t descend from aquatic apes, of course, although our ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open plains as some anthropologists still believe.
Instead, Pleistocene Homo populations simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia (800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas), google “econiche Homo”.
–eBook “Was Man more aquatic in the past?” introd.Phillip Tobias
http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/978.../index.htm
–guest post at Greg Laden’s blog
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/0...ape-theory

I wouldn't go so far as to say "Humans didn’t descend from aquatic apes, of course ...", but only that the evidence isn't compelling.

The theory is not crazy, the indirect evidence is believable. The population of humans was subjected to at least one major bottleneck (probably more) during its evolution and one was in coastal Africa.

It may turn out that the theory is in some measure true - but more evidence is needed. There is not enough evidence to summarily reject it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-06-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
This is what I think of it

[Image: 20130112.gif]

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like nach_in's post
05-06-2013, 08:31 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)nach_in Wrote:  This is what I think of it

[Image: 20130112.gif]

It is a slightly stronger theory than the football (also know as the "Baby Booter") one. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-06-2013, 09:01 AM
RE: Dear sciencey people: what are your opinions on the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?
(05-06-2013 08:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)nach_in Wrote:  This is what I think of it

[Image: 20130112.gif]

It is a slightly stronger theory than the football (also know as the "Baby Booter") one. Consider

It's stronger because it explains our control of our vocal chords, but only that.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: