Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 8:07 AM

I'm waiting for the avian ape theory.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | August 4, 2009 8:13 AM

I saw that the AAH was recently resurrected on TEDTalks. I immediately thought of Jim Moore's page (which you've linked to before here).

Posted by: BdN | August 4, 2009 8:32 AM

Nah, you see, according to specialists, the AAH is the better one since it explains why the grasp of human infants is NOT vestigial... :

Infants are born knowing how to swim underwater, and they are the only primate babies with considerable body fat, obviously ‘designed’ for flotation and insulation. Babies’ clenching fists are simply grabbing mama’s long hair (another aquatic adaptation) for a tow while she’s foraging.

You see, AAH critics tend to forget that women were foraging in the water back then.

This, and that breast were baby pillows.

Posted by: Luke | August 4, 2009 8:38 AM

Somebody posted the TEDtalk on AANR no more than 2 days ago and I had to explain to him the failings of the statements made by the proponents. I didn't think anybody would be so stupid as to claim that apes are not bipedal, we don't have body-wide hair follicles, and that aquatic mammals have no hair.
After responding to him a half dozen times he said I was being closed minded because I refused to waste the 20 minutes of watching the video, disregarding the fact that I read their information directly off the website, and then compared me to being a creationist, even though I clearly could explain primate evolution better than he could and I wasn't even going into detail. The proponents are thick as pig shit, I swear...

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 4, 2009 8:48 AM

This is still around? It seemed like a pretty neat hypothesis many years ago, pity it didn't work out.

Posted by: Fedor | August 4, 2009 8:51 AM

The worst thing is that David Attenborough seems to favour the AAH as evidenced by his description of it in one of his documentaries (Life of Mammals, I believe).

Posted by: Sastra | August 4, 2009 8:53 AM

As PZ doubtless knows, the reason this subject has come up is that Pastor Tom Estes has brought it up on his blog under the title "Atheist Scientist Disproves Evolution." He apparently thinks that disagreements on how evolution took place puts the entire theory in crisis. After all, atheists think that religious disagreements put the theory of God in crisis: what works for one, works for the other.

But of course, we're not talking about similar issues. Science has always proceeded through a process of argument and dispute -- it is a process of argument and dispute. We're building up a body of knowledge through the skeptical collective process of group endeavor.

Special revelations, however, works from the top down, because there is no work, no argument, no dispute. It deals with special individuals, and special groups who believe and follow these individuals. Revelations are supposed to be trustworthy communications from God, which you can trust because you can know they're from God because these are the sorts of things you can just know because they're from God. Trust that.

Pointing out that there are conflicting revelations given to sincere believers undermines the idea that one can be confident about this knowing business. It also casts doubt on the existence of a wise God who would choose to work this way, through a subjective means which usually leads to error, for it encourages people to elevate themselves and their intuitions as special, and above others.

I'd already read debunkings of Morgan's Aquatic Ape hypothesis in Skeptic and other sources. But even if this was a viable, plausible, working hypothesis, it wouldn't mean what Estes apparently thinks it means.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 4, 2009 9:00 AM

@12: I think Attenborough gives it a passing mention at one point as an interesting speculative idea- was it a voiceover for those Japanese macaques? I don't think he counts as a "proponent" :)

I rewatched Life on Earth recently and it's quite striking that the final episode on the apes was clearly written back when we thought the gorilla could be our closest relative, before the genetic analyses came back pretty definitively for chimp. Which just means that _science advances_.

Posted by: Roy Hilbinger | August 4, 2009 9:00 AM

What? You mean the Creature from the Black Lagoon was just a story?

Posted by: Moggie | August 4, 2009 9:08 AM

#9:

Oh, and I forgot the great "book" The Origins of Emotions by Mark Devon where we learn on page 112 that "beards evolved to stop men courting men" since it was the only body part visible above water! And that we have eyebrows, unlike other species, so we could communicate underwater !

Having read that paragraph, I'm communicating with my eyebrows right now! What I'm mainly communicating is puzzlement about what kinds of courtship Mr Devon has experienced.

Posted by: BdN | August 4, 2009 9:11 AM

Me :

I'm not very familiar with the Aquatic Ape hypothesis. I get the sense that you don't think it is valid, what is your hypotheis how late human evolution? Why do we lack bodyhair, why can babies swim etc...

Another question, what was the advantage of loosing our body hair when their where a raging ice age going on?

Take a look here and here

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 4, 2009 9:16 AM

@15: The AAH doesn't explain why we lack body hair, for three reasons. Firstly, hairlessness is not a particularly aquatic trait: otters, polar bears, fur seals. Secondly, human body hair varies enormously from bare to fleecy within our species today. Thirdly, we have no idea how much hair our ancestors did or didn't have in the last few million years. Thus there is nothing to be explained, and the AAH would not explain it if there were.

Posted by: elece | August 4, 2009 9:17 AM

Nonsense. It's well known that humans doesn't descend from aquatic apes; they evolved as the Atlantean race. Sea Monkeys are also a collateral branch.

About that beard hypothesis, it's interesting; but what about the pubic hair then?

Posted by: BdN | August 4, 2009 9:20 AM

Having read that paragraph, I'm communicating with my eyebrows right now! What I'm mainly communicating is puzzlement about what kinds of courtship Mr Devon has experienced.

I think I'd rather not know! But one thing is sure : he is about to be cruelly disappointed! This just in last week :
Is the new trend to remove eyebrows a profound social statement - or just another daft fad from Planet Fashion?

"Some of those who have already followed this trend have suggested it is, one described it, 'an optimistic, idealistic statement' which is somehow unifying because it renders men and women more asexual.

One American woman, who seems to take it all very seriously, told the New York Times: 'Removing eyebrows removes a degree of expression, which makes one look less human and more anrebral, maybe even mechanical. It's exercise in modernity.'"

Modernity is all about refusing to communicate! I knew it!

Posted by: BdN | August 4, 2009 9:31 AM

elece

About that beard hypothesis, it's interesting; but what about the pubic hair then?

Well, as far as I can tell, it is supposed to trigger desire "since female genitalia was not visible before Brazilian waxing" (p.108). A little bit male-centered (in the sense that everything has evolved so men could reproduce appropriately)... and tautological. Women, stop waxing! He also states, or seems to, that it excludes "children" from the reproductive category. Or something like that.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 4, 2009 9:39 AM

@31: what "savannah hypothesis"? Please be specific when building strawmen.

Posted by: Greg Laden | August 4, 2009 9:40 AM

One of the problems with the aquatic ape theory/hypothesis is that there is a version for everyone. It is a great example of backpedaling over the decades, but as this backpedaling has progresses, each version is left extant.

The best way to think about this is the following: Take at face value the starting point that all australopith fossils have been found in aquatic habitats (true) in association with aquatic animals (true). This indicates a strong aquatic link, and everything else in the argument is supported by or comes from this.

Now, apply that reasoning, which is not necessarily terrible reasoning on the face, to all other fossils found in the same general region (Africa). It turns out that there should then be an aquatic phase for wildebeest. And impala. And dozens of other mammals.

Then, reassess the starting point: Is it really true that all the australopiths are found in aquatic habitats? No. For instance, not one of the South African hominid fossils are found in anything even close to aquatic habitats.

(I will leave the ATT theorists to challenge me on that...)

Posted by: BdN | August 4, 2009 9:45 AM

Fact is, the Savannah Hypothesis is no more (or less) supported by paleontological evidence than AAH is.

Srsly ?

Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 4, 2009 9:48 AM

A variant of the Aquatic Ape : the "theory" of intial bipedy, developed by François de Sarre.

http://www.ldi5.com/paleo/bi.php
(in French)

The ideas defended here are very special: a sort of anti-Darwinian evolution, with macro-mutations and Lamarckian inheritance. Definitely in the "weird science" category (although there's not much empirical work around it).

Posted by: cedgray | August 4, 2009 9:51 AM

I liked this exchange, right at the bottom:

Elaine Morgan: "Only one thing never changes. Jim supplies a million reasons why what I think is wrong. He never has and never will stick his neck out to tell us how he would explain a blind thing about human evolution. With a quarter of the time and work he has put in he could surely have come up with a theory that would knock Hardy's into a cocked hat. What a waste of years and intelligence."

Jim Moore: "There are many people writing about human evolution, providing a lot of fascinating and accurate theory-building. I am simply taking one theory, and pointing out its abundance of errors. I can certainly understand why you would prefer I didn't, but my correcting the errors introduced by the theory's authors hardly seems a waste -- indeed, this is an essential part of science. It's the keystone on which science builds. Spending 30 plus years spouting the same disproven false "facts", on the other hand, does seem a waste, but only if one thinks the theorizer was capable of more than that."

Nice.

Posted by: Captain Mike | August 4, 2009 10:03 AM

I'm not any kind of biologist, so my opinion on this is essentially worthless, but here it is anyway: humans are CURRENTLY a semi-aquatic species.

It seems pretty obvious to me that humans really like swimming, we really like coastlines, and our noses are a bit better at keeping out water than most ape noses are. Which means...fuck, I don't know. Once again, not a biologist.

I don't know how we evolved. That's something for specialists to wrangle over, investigate, and then tell the rest of us. If the majority of biologists are willing to say that AAH is bogus, then I'm willing to accept that. Especially seeing as my other options are either...

a) Stick fingers in ears, repeat "La la la, I can't hear you," over and over again.
b) Go back to school for umpteen zillion years so that I can get the education I need to evaluate the claims myself. That ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 4, 2009 10:09 AM

what was the advantage of loosing our body hair when their where a raging ice age going on?

Now I want to write a Twilight Zone-type story in which an evil spellchecker wreaks worldwide havoc with homonyms.

Posted by: BdN | August 4, 2009 10:14 AM

Captain Mike

It seems pretty obvious to me that humans really like swimming, we really like coastlines, and our noses are a bit better at keeping out water than most ape noses are.

As John Langdon wrote in this paper (if you have institutional access) :

"The evaluation of parsimony should consider not only observed phenomena, but also
unobserved possibilities. The AAH must explain why humans do not have a fusiform torso and
dorsally oriented nostrils, among other traits."

Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | August 4, 2009 10:23 AM

If the marine ape hypothesis were true, would't humans be able to drink sea water?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2009 10:26 AM

Tom, quit being a blog whore.

If you have something stupid to say (and judging by your blog, that's a bottomless well you drink from) say it here and quit being scared.

Posted by: Barbarian | August 4, 2009 10:35 AM

I have a slight pet peeve with the "if hairlessness was an indication of adaptation to water, why are there hairy aquatic animals" argument: it seems to presuppose that there is exactly one way to adapt to a certain environment and evolution would necessarily find that one and only one way of adaptation in a short time, so if hairlessness was an adaptation to an aquatic lifestyle, all aquatic animals would be hairless. This bothers me. The way I see it, evolution might simply have found different locally optimal trait packages for different aquatic species, some of those packages including hairlessness and some not. We should not evaluate an adaptation by checking whether everyone else does it; we should check instead whether it helps the actual animal in question. In the case at hand, hairlessness in humans should be evaluated as an indication of aquatic origin by verifying whether a human having chimpanzee fur but otherwise preserving all other traits is or is not better adapted to an aquatic lifestyle.

Posted by: xebecs | August 4, 2009 10:42 AM

So where are the aquatic PYGMIES+DWARFS???!???

Posted by: Dawn | August 4, 2009 10:54 AM

I haven't seen anyone address this (if I missed it, I apologize). Babies are NOT born knowing how to swim. They have an instinctive reflex to hold their breath under water. There is no purposeful swimming movement. I've seen several water births. While the babies don't attempt to breathe until their face is exposed to air, they are in no way swimming unless you want to describe normal wiggling movements, identical to those made in utero, as swimming.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 4, 2009 11:22 AM

-If the marine ape hypothesis were true, would't humans be able to drink sea water?-

Don't be silly we would have holes in the top of our heads for the water to blow out of.

Posted by: Quidam | August 4, 2009 11:33 AM

David Attenborough refers to it in the film Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life. Against backdrop of chimps wading in water he says: "Suddenly an image from our remote past comes vividly to light. The time when our distant ancestors in order to keep up with the changing environment had to wade and keep their heads above water in order to find food. That crucial moment when our far distant ancestors took a step away from being apes and a step towards humanity"

Is this just fanciful prose or does Attenborough have a point?

Is the reality that there are some parts of the aquatic ape hypothesis that are sound and other parts that are not?

Posted by: DynamicUno | August 4, 2009 11:41 AM

Out of curiousity, what theory explaining the development of bipedalism do you favour?

I'm afraid I've been out of touch for a while and I'm certain things have changed since the "looking over tall savannah grass" days; a quick google search turned up something like a dozen different theories being promoted.

Posted by: Watchman | August 4, 2009 11:47 AM

Re #6:

Finally, the indispensible but not permanent aquatic phase is proof of God ultimately directing our evolution, since it required the sinking of the Milocene Danakil Alps in Eritrea to form a large Red-Sea jungle island hosting already bipedal tree-apes.

Wow. Proof!

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 4, 2009 11:55 AM

Check it out. Estes, having had his viscera handed to him over the Morgan video, backpedals furiously and claims he was being "sarcastic"...

And so it goes...

This, of course, is one of the fundamental problems with nutters like Estes and flim-flam artists like Ham: the utter inability ever to admit how utterly full of it they are, and the steadily deepening mess that builds around them, following from that. Each deception piles on the last, and the whole edifice becomes steadily more pathological with each added layer. Maintaining it becomes central to their identity--they have to be right, or at least not yet forced to admit they're wrong: merely doing what the merely sane would do, and admitting they're on the wrong track? Nuh uh. Not gonna happen. Not if there's any possible way, however absurd, that they can instead tell another one, spin it up another level, keep on keepin' on...

The bad news is: they can become a huge time sink. As they're constantly insisting: no, no, review my latest dodge--see... I'm not dead yet... Rilly, I've got it this time... And when the inevitable result of their rhetorical chicanery arrives, and people start tuning out, saying, awright, enough, go 'way, life's too short for me to waste on this yutz, they then see that as their 'victory'. As in: see, they're reduced to ignoring me, because they have no answer... Clearly, I'm right.

... And then again, the good news is, the net result isn't wholly negative, either. Folk watching, seeing the BS taken apart think to themselves: okay, I guess I really don't wanna be that guy--I'll check my references, I'll dot my Is, cross my Ts, check now and then, ask myself: 'what reasonable objections could people bring, how could I be wrong'... as opposed to 'how can I dodge around those, distract people with yet another rhetorical subterfuge...' And mebbe if I do that, I won't wind up in a deep, dark hole of my own making like him, spinning around, telling howler after howler on the increasingly hilariously thin pretext that I'm not just pulling whatever I can out of my ass in a hopeless attempt to protect my fragile ego...

But still, fuck. Wotta twit. There's more than a whiff of narcissm about it, too, when ya think about it. Yeah, sure, the world must waste their time on my stupidity... 'Cos, y'know, my ravings are so terribly, dreadfully important to everyone...

(/Goes off looking for 'Oh Geez, not this shit again' image macro...)

Posted by: QrazyQat | August 4, 2009 12:03 PM

Hi, Jim Moore here again. The reason this popped up is Elaine's TED talk and a couple of pointers to it, particularly one at Dawkins' site, one at Atheist Media, and reddit, at least those, and PZ's older post about me, are the biggest directors of traffic to my site right now. In fact, it's been spooky to see just how much traffic some really highly eyeballed sites can drive to a small specialist site like mine. As of yesterday, with 3 days of the month gone, I'm on my second biggest bandwidth month ever. If this keeps up long I could even have to pay extra for my hosting for the first time. Wild and weird.

I wanted to mention a couple of specifics, one is about the hairy aquatic and semiaquatic mammals, which indeed are a problem the AAT/H proponents (which is why they generally forget to mention them, and usually don't mention what mammals they're talking about losing hair). About a month ago I put together a list of all the aquatic and semiaquatic mammals and what it means for the AAT/H. This includes the question of how many times aquaticism and semiaquaticism evolved in mammals and a couple other points. You might find it interesting; the bottom line is that if you just look at how many aquatic and semiaquatic species are hairy and how many not, it's a little less than half non-hairy, but when you look at how many times aquaticism and semiaquaticism evolved, it's no more than 3 times for non-hairy mammals and at least 28 times for hairy ones. Non-hairiness and water is a very rare thing rather than the commonplace the aquatic idea suggests.

The swimming babies reflex is explained on my site; it's a reflex found in all mammals which have been tested, aquatic and terrestrial. Look for the "Swimming Babies" page.

PZ, Dan Dennett seems to like the AAH idea.

This has been pushed by Morgan and later by her followers, but the truth isn't so good for them. Basically he said in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that he hadn't, at gatherings, found anyone who could give a detailed off the cuff outline of the problems with the AAT/H. I'm not surprised. I doubt many people could give a detailed off the cuff outline of the problems with Velikovsky's stuff either; it takes a familiarity with the sources and a wide range of facts that simply isn't found in people who haven't studied that particular fringe idea. He later has said it's in the category of several fringe ideas which ID should "get in line behind", ideas which he says are intriguing but lack hard evidence. That's not too ringing an endorsement by my lights.

And the "Initial Bipedalism" thing, while a sideshow, is interesting because it started mostly from the work of a guy who AAT/H proponents like to point to but never mention his actual thoughts on the subject. The Tetrapod Zoology blog had an entry on this a while back. It's crazier than the AAT/H, and it's still ongoing. The guy who mostly came up with this, the guy whose name is invoked by the AAT/H folk, was Max Westenhöfer, and his idea was that all mammals descended from a bipedal form and that modern humans are the closest to that form, essentially that all mammals descended from us. We descended directly from the Lurchreptil, his proposed ancestor which was an amphibian/reptile thingy. I'm sure the closed-minded scientific establishment is why we aren't taught that in our textbooks.

Posted by: QrazyQat | August 4, 2009 12:07 PM

Sir David Attenborough has long had a soft spot for the AAT/H; he did a BBC Radio 4 show on it a couple years back and I have a page on my site critiquing it. He fell on his face on that one, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Axel | August 4, 2009 12:42 PM

David Attenborough talks about it on BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scarsofevolution.shtml

Posted by: Quidam | August 4, 2009 1:01 PM

Posting a comment "my reply is on my blog" simply means that it is unlikely to be read. The 'discussion' is being held here, trying to divert it to your blog seems to be a transparent scheme to leech some traffic. If there were censorship or post length restrictions here there might be a justification for it, but since there aren't, there isn't.

Posted by: Bone Oboe | August 4, 2009 1:20 PM

Posted by: PGPWNIT "I come from the water, that weren't no easy thing."

The Toadies*? Holy shit. Now, before I get to read the rest of the comments, I'm going to have to dig through my CD books to find "Rubberneck."

*That's an acoustic performance that doesn't have the energy of the cut on the album, but it's the best I could find.

Posted by: SEF | August 4, 2009 1:23 PM

Another valid reason for referring someone elsewhere is if the ideal reply contains more than 3 links - which would lead to it being held up by ScienceBlogs moderation.

A further reason would be the inclusion of relevant images or similar in the reply. While it's not impossible to embed images here, it's certainly discouraged.

There may also be situations, as with PZ's choice to link to Jim Moore's site(!), where the pre-written reply contains a lot of complicated additional detail (perhaps including cross-linking and images too) which explains things much better but would be treated as a "tl;dr" post here.

However, that last one doesn't excuse someone from giving a brief but convincing explanation/summary here before pointing out that there's more detail elsewhere.

Posted by: Ralph Johnson | August 4, 2009 1:29 PM

I note that Wikipedia on the Elaine Morgan (Write) page makes the AAH sound like it has some credibility in the scientific community:

****
Although some critics still remain,[6] her opinions are now being considered by a broader audience and have achieved some recognition in academic circles. In 1999, for example, Morgan was invited to speak at Tufts University,[7] Harvard University,[7] and the University of Ghent, Belgium, at the "Symposium of Water and Human Evolution".[8] In 2004 Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia with co-author David W. Cameron stated that

"..nor can we exclude the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH). Elaine Morgan has long argued that many aspects of human anatomy are best explained as a legacy of a semi-aquatic phase in the proto-human trajectory, and this includes upright posture to cope with increased water depth as our ancestors foraged farther and further from the lake or seashore. At first, this idea was simply ignored as grotesque, and perhaps as unworthy of discussion because proposed by an amateur. But Morgan's latest arguments have reached a sophistication that simply demands to be taken seriously (Morgan 1990, 1997). And although the authors shy away from more speculative reconstructions in favour of phylogenetic scenarios, we insist that the AAH take its place in the battery of possible functional scenarios for hominin divergence."[9]
****

Does Wikipedia need some editing here?

Posted by: Tom Estes | August 4, 2009 2:03 PM

Wow! If these kind of thoughtful, kind replies continue, I may to change my opinion of this place. Thanks for the feedback guys.

Posted by: QrazyQat | August 4, 2009 2:22 PM

Just looked at my site's stats again and it's official, most of the traffic now is coming from PZ's post here (you beat Dawkins) and it's 50% more traffic -- in 4 days -- than I've ever had in one month. About 3-2 times my usual.

I think this internet thing is catching on.

Does Wikipedia need some editing here?

The Wiki thing is something I've wondered if I should write about on my site. A couple years back I tried just changing the descriptive text where my site was linked; it was editorial and negative and I changed it to as neutral as possible. That caused a flurry of edits. I'm a bit of a lightning rod in this and I haven't tried since to change anything in the Wiki entry because I figured it would just touch off a war like the sci.anthropology.paleo newsgroup has become over the years.

The Wiki entry is better now, although the link to my site has been dropped as not being official enough, which is too bad IMO because it's really the only spot that has all this info together, albeit in a somewhat unwieldy mass. But it's still, again IMO, getting too much attention by fans of the idea who just don't do science justice. Like I said, I think my getting involved wouldn't work, but don't have any good idea what else to do about it.

BTW, there's a long, very long thread on the idea over at Dawkins' forum where I've been posting along with some other folks who've done some very good criticisms, along with one of the idea's main proponents. If you search in there (I post under the name "anthrosciguy" there) I have a not too long post about Elaine's TED talk specifically.

Unfortunately, or maybe it isn't, this is all happening just as I'm leaving on a trip so I won't be able to keep up with all of it very well.

Posted by: Sarcastro | August 4, 2009 2:59 PM

what "savannah hypothesis"? Please be specific when building strawmen.

Excuse me, have I travelled to the PAST? Because here in the heady 21st century most people can perform a simple google search when they're utterly ignorant about that which they are speaking.

Srsly.

Posted by: TheBlackCat | August 4, 2009 3:07 PM

@ QrazyQat: Do you have a link to the dawkins thread?

Posted by: Tatarize | August 4, 2009 3:25 PM

My main objection to AAH is that it isn't scientific. They look at the differences between humans and chimps and make up just-so stories as to how water made the critical evolutionary difference. You're suppose to look at evidence and come to conclusions if you don't want to come up with tissue thin just-so stories.

So they have these tissue thin just-so stories about how evolution worked and then when called on some of their contradictory nonsense, they become more cryptic and more vague. Rather than refining the theory and becoming more specific and more exact over the last 50 years, they have become less specific and more vague.

My objection to them is that they're not doing real science, and never have.

Posted by: Will TS | August 4, 2009 3:55 PM

Consider the armadillo. Not much hair. Therefore, there must have been earlier aquatic armadillos. And nobody has been able to provide me with a complete refutation of my Aquatic Armadillo Hypothesis. I win.

Also, I can't swim.

Posted by: amphiox | August 4, 2009 4:21 PM

The AAH was my accidental introduction to human paleontology, back when I was a kid. I was playing in a chess tournament away from home, and I found Morgan's two books in my billet's library, and read them both over the course of that week. I would not have become as interested in the subject, or ended up reading as widely or learning as much as I did, if it were not for that.

I think of the AAH as one of those beautiful ideas slain by the ugly facts of reality.

For some wild but amusing speculation, considering the possibility that modern humans are somewhat preadapted for a semi-aquatic lifestyle (hell, with scuba gear and some training we can outswim some fish!), perhaps some day in the future there will be an Aquatic Ape, if technological humans off themselves, and the scattered bands of survivors undergo an adaptive radiation. (If the toxins leeching from the Great Pacific Garbage patch don't kill them first).

Posted by: Richard Smith | August 4, 2009 4:30 PM

I remember reading a book on the aquatic ape hypothesis around twenty years ago. It did have a few interesting points, but then I share something with the author - neither of us are biologists, evolutionary or otherwise. I read refutations of it some years later, and took it in stride; I'd pretty much categorized it as "neat idea" as opposed to "science fact," anyway.

Regarding Me's query (#15) about lack of body hair, that reminds me of one of my favourite bits from a little red book I found years ago (and currently seem to have lost - sigh!), The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved In 50 Arguments. "Argument" 21, "Man Hairless and Tailless," includes this astute poser:

If the hair left on the body is vestigial, why is there no hair on the back, where it was most abundant on our brute ancestors? Even Wallace, an evolutionist of Darwin's day, who did not believe in the evolution of man, calls attention to the fact that even the so-called vestigial hair on the human form is entirely absent from the back[...]

These folks clearly had extremely small social circles. Just a trip to the beach reveals a vast spectrum of dorsal hirsuteness.

@Will TS (#92):

Consider the armadillo. Not much hair. Therefore, there must have been earlier aquatic armadillos.

But where are the schools of aquatic naked molerats? Swimming majestically through the water like herds of tiny pink manatees, and making their burrows in coral reefs.

Posted by: frog | August 4, 2009 4:44 PM

Sastra: Maybe. I don't know. Interesting idea, though.

Why interesting? None of these "hair hypotheses" seem terribly interesting.

We walk in the middle of the day. We sweat so we don't broil under the midday sun. Sweat works better the less hair you have.

What would be "interesting" is the detail of how sweat production spread over the body. When and how quickly; how many genes are required to expand sweat production, and what other systems must change to sweat while you walk in the middle of the day.

But these wordy "hypothesis"? Pshaww. That's all just masturbatory fantasies.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 4, 2009 4:52 PM

Why do we lack bodyhair

We don't. It's shorter but denser than in other apes.

What? You mean the Creature from the Black Lagoon was just a story?

No. We found its larva..

Nicholas Humphrey has an interesting hypothesis. He suggests that a mutation lead to some humans having less hair than others -- and this meant that, in cold climates, these little pockets needed to stay together just a bit more often, to keep warm and survive.

Once again: what cold climates in tropical Africa? Or, alternatively, why don't Africans have more body hair?

Does Wikipedia need some editing here?

Yes. Cite Tet Zoo's article and its sources.

Posted by: windy | August 4, 2009 5:13 PM

One commenter, Derek, summarized Morgan's position as follows: "Life evolved just as evolution suggests. However during the last few million years I think one species evolved though a different route than most evolutionary biologists."

Evolutionary biologists are a different species?

Posted by: Watchman | August 4, 2009 6:00 PM

Evolutionary biologists are a different species?

Obviously!

Posted by: dinkum | August 4, 2009 6:26 PM

I remember reading about this aquatic ape stuff 20-30 years ago, and I think it was in Omni...maybe Discover. I recall thinking of one particular environmental factor that still remains unaccounted for in my worthless opinion:
Motherfuckin' crocodiles.
Happy hairless apes dogpaddling around in the shallows my ass.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 4, 2009 7:04 PM

By sticking point where the AAH is concerned is human proportions. We tend to have long limbs, and even as far back as the early australopithecines our ancestors had long limbs. Long skinny limbs too.

Water is a great conductor of heat. You stick something long and skinny with a low volume to surface ratio in water it's going to lose heat fast. Unless---as with otters---it has a damn thick pelt of fur on it. And otters are kinda chunky compared to other mustelids when you get right down to it.

Our proportions are all wrong for any sort of aquatic origin. Our ancestors had the wrong proportions for an aquatic origin, where the physics of water are concerned.

Now consider drag. Water is denser than air. It is harder to move things through water than air. 'Bout every aquatic mammal I know of has short limbs, not those great long things we do and our ancestors did. When it comes to keeping warm and moving about in water we are just the wrong shape.

Getting around and keeping cool in a hot, dry, grassland with scattered scrub on the other hand...

Posted by: Pacal | August 4, 2009 7:46 PM

Sarcastro

Fact is, the Savannah Hypothesis is no more (or less) supported by paleontological evidence than AAH is. Its only leg up over other theories is that it came first. It is the orthodoxy.

Meh. Morgan is a lightweight anyways. You want scientific heterodoxy with some teeth? Try Julian Jaynes.

Are you referring to that piece of idiotic tripe The Origins of Consciousness and the breakdown of the Bicameral mind?

The entire book is an example of the arguement from incredulity. I.E., since rational human beings could not really have believed that the "Gods" talked directly to them it must have been one side of their brains telling the otherside what to do and us misnterpreting that has "Gods" telling us to do stuff. It is absolute nonsense. Does there exist today a single society in which the majority of or even a sizable number of human beings had such a problem? Nope! Such people would be clearly and reconizably visible after a bit of conversation. I note that such people seemed to be absent when High Land New Guinea was opened up in the 1930's. Julian Jaynes special pleading to explain how it broke down and conciouness emerged is risible and involves low level shoddy special pleading. Julian Jaynes teeth are riddled with cavities.

As you have been told the "Savanna hypothesis" you talk about is a strawman. The fact is the remains of humanoid creatures that are likely to be if not our ancestors, related to our ancestors have been found in habitats that are not aquatic but a variety of inland habitats. That being the case the onus is on those who advance the aquatic hypothesis.

Posted by: QrazyQat | August 4, 2009 7:59 PM

I see, so if flight evolved in feathered animals only once (maybe), this suggests that flight and feathers is a "very rare thing"?

No, it would suggest that the evolution of flight is a very rare thing in feathered animals. And indeed the evolution of flight is a very rare thing among all vertebrates. Now perhaps I should've worded that so it couldn't be twisted... sorry, taken wrongly. :) I said "Non-hairiness and water is a very rare thing rather than the commonplace the aquatic idea suggests." Let's try "the evolution of hairlessness in connection with water is a very rare thing rather than the commonplace the aquatic idea suggests."

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 4, 2009 9:14 PM

Josh @ # 99 - thanks for the clarification.

Can anyone more familiar with the aquape hypothesis specify just where this phase of evolution is supposed to have occurred?

Posted by: Tom | August 4, 2009 9:56 PM

Interestingly, the ancient philosopher and scientist Anaximander posited that we came from the ocean. He had a relatively persuasive argument, lack of science permitting, of course.

What's sad is that no one else had said this fun fact.

Posted by: GMacs | August 5, 2009 12:28 AM

I'm waiting for the avian ape theory.

I thought I was watching a documentary about this once. Then the THC wore off, and I realized it was just The Wizard of Oz.

The Pink Floyd shoulda been a dead giveaway.

Posted by: The pudding has enough egg | August 5, 2009 5:16 AM

Hello - my first (nervous) post here - Having read Jim Moore's excellent site on the AAT/H I have only one minor quibble ~ the argument about sea predators, specifically sharks).

I don't find this a very convincing argument and see no need to "over-egg the pudding".)

As far as I am aware very few shark species ever attack man (and many/most times that they do they take one bite and leave). Most attacks take place in waters with poor visibility, which is not the case in East African waters. (I know there are far fewer sharks than there used to be but there are also far more humans in the water and far fewer of their traditional prey, and, as far as I am aware no seal colonies in the area under discussion.) I don't really think that sharks would have much of a problem for any coastal hominid. Rivers and estuaries would have been far more dangerous.

On an ever more minor note I don't see the need to mention salt water crocodiles either. There are also no salt water crocodiles off the East African coast (or I would NEVER have gone swimming there, I was far more concerned about jelly fish and Portuguese Men O'War.)

Posted by: Kári | August 5, 2009 7:25 AM

I'm going to get pounded for this so badly and I already regret it.

Now, it was my understanding that the aquatic ape theory did not actually propose humans went through a completely aquatic phase, like seals, but rather a wading phase - causing the evolution of bipedalism. Jim Moore looks past this in his criticism. Also, he doesn't mention our (ever-so-slightly) webbed fingers which all other apes lack.

I don't believe our ancestors ever lived underwater which seems to be what he is arguing against, but that they lived near shallow water and often had to traverse shallow water.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 5, 2009 7:48 AM

@122: one of the biggest issues with "AAH" is getting it pinned down on specifics. If it could be pinned right down to something as specific as a "wading hypothesis" then it would be a pretty coherent contribution to the argument about the origin of bipedalism. A quick web search indicates that Algis Kuliakis appears to be trying to work in this line (Journal of Comparative Human Biology
Volume 60, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 248-249 ) and that's something, though it's just an abstract of a conference proceeding and mostly full of whining about how unfair all the criticisms are. I argued with him at RDnet a few years ago and he wasn't at all receptive to advice on getting stuff published. I think he thought I was being condescending but, you know, at least I do publish :)

Of course, if we stick to wading then all of the hair/sweat/body fat stuff becomes a bit irrelevant, and it's not as if apeas aren't regularly bipedal in all sorts of other contexts.

Historically, though, it's been an absolute mishmash where this human feature is supposed to be about diving, this about swimming, this about wading... Jim Moore's criticisms are pretty comprehensive.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 5, 2009 9:14 AM

As noted above, humans do like to swim.

Are there any other primates with equal or greater affinity for life in the water?

Posted by: Greg. Tingey | August 5, 2009 9:56 AM

OK
So....
PLEASE EXPLAIN

1. Human "hairlessness"
2. The covering (I forget its name) that humans have at birth, that is elsewhere only seen on Seals, etc.
3. The human breathing system - VERY similar to that of surface aquatic mammals.
4. The abilty of VERY small children to swim ( ?? )

My suggestion is that the theory is HALF right.

So that pre-Humans evelved as beach-combers and shallow-waders, but then reverted to fully land-dwelling.

What IS certain is that the current "explanations" for humanity's evolutionary path is incorrect in some major details, and that the numbered points raised above must be fully accounted for in any comprehensive account.

This is NOT to say that Elaine Morgan was 100% correct.

But she wasnt 100% wrong, either.

Now what?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 5, 2009 10:21 AM

1) humans aren't hairless.
2) what?
3) In what sense- we've got lungs?
4) Small children are no more capable of swimming than any other infant mammal.

5) science goes on. Come back with substantive arguments.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 11:46 AM

Now, it was my understanding that the aquatic ape theory did not actually propose humans went through a completely aquatic phase, like seals, but rather a wading phase - causing the evolution of bipedalism.

Do we really need anything to explain the evolution of bipedalism in humans?

Probably not. In all of the rare cases when gibbons and orang-utans walk (as opposed to climbing), they do so bipedally. After all, they're already used to holding the trunk vertical (...and gibbons have so long arms that, if they'd walk quadrupedally, the trunk would still be vertical!).

It's not clear yet, but knuckle-walking could be the derived state...

Jim Moore looks past this in his criticism.

Are you sure you've read his entire website? It's big...

Also, he doesn't mention our (ever-so-slightly) webbed fingers which all other apes lack.

Come on. Show me that the other apes all lack this, and show me it has any hydrodynamic effect worth mention.

Posted by: BdN | August 5, 2009 12:00 PM

Quickly addressed by Jim Moore near the bottom of this page.

(picture here)

Posted by: QrazyQat | August 5, 2009 12:14 PM

Now, it was my understanding that the aquatic ape theory did not actually propose humans went through a completely aquatic phase, like seals, but rather a wading phase - causing the evolution of bipedalism. Jim Moore looks past this in his criticism. Also, he doesn't mention our (ever-so-slightly) webbed fingers which all other apes lack.

Wrong on both counts. First, I do deal with the less aquatic aquatic ape stuff, and the biggest problem is that this idea makes their idea even less likely. First they were looking for selection pressure that gave us characterisitics found only in seals, whales, and sirenia, and now they want to have even less water contact and use and still get those features. How on earth does that possibly happen?

The small amount of webbing we sometimes see in humsn is also sometimes seen in gorillas, as well as gibbons and siamangs. In siamangs it's actually a defining characteristic of their species, so much so that it's part of their scientific name (Symphalangus syndactylus).

Now think about this for a second. It's not your fault you had this wrong information. You got it from AAT/H proponents like Morgan. It's dead wrong and is easily found to be wrong with minimal research. This tells you that they're either doing less than minimal research or deliberately misleading you -- either way it makes them an unreliable source of info. Your only "crime" was wanting to learn and know, and for this "crime" they fed you false information. This should make you very unhappy.

BTW, both those points are mentioned on my site.

Sorry if there are any other questions. We're off on a trip starting in about an hour and I've got to run. If anyone does have specific questions they'd like to ask me, or points that could stand clarification, please email me at the feedmail mailto link on my site. I won't be able to get to email for maybe a couple weeks, but I will get back to you. I'll also be on a podcast by the Ottawa Skeptics, which I believe they'll have up this Sunday. They interviewed me last night and I hope it turned out well.

Posted by: Haruhiist | August 5, 2009 4:04 PM

@BDN:

Yeah that definitely makes more sense :) I thought it was a very weird argument to make, as I don't think being born in the caul is a very common occurence in humans (fewer than 1 in 1000 births, according to wikipedia).
I just thought it would be funny if it actually was his argument:)

Posted by: Merman | August 5, 2009 10:24 PM

It must be true. How else do you explain mermaids and mermen? Come on people! Facts is facts, and mermaids are real, Obama is a Kenyan, and jesus christ was the real inspiration behind the Rambo series... Anyone who doubts is deluding themselves...

Posted by: Viagra | August 6, 2009 12:08 AM

gratefulness you for your report and it helped me in preparing my college assignment.

Posted by: Lilly de Lure | August 6, 2009 5:12 AM

David Marjanovic

Probably not. In all of the rare cases when gibbons and orang-utans walk (as opposed to climbing), they do so bipedally. After all, they're already used to holding the trunk vertical (...and gibbons have so long arms that, if they'd walk quadrupedally, the trunk would still be vertical!).

It's not clear yet, but knuckle-walking could be the derived state...

Could it be that our ancestors split with those of chimpanzees whilst most of Africa was still covered by dense forest by becoming more specialised arborialists, as opposed to by moving out of the forests (or haing the forests move away from them is (I think) probably the more accurate description) as has previously been thought?

That solves the bipedalism problem instantly - they were bipedal on the ground for the same reasons as gibbons and orang-utans are - whilst knuckle-walking remained the locomotion of choice for gorillas and chimps who were never as arborial as our ancestors in the first place.

I'm not sure whether this suggestions would fit in well with the genetic evidence of the timing of the split between chimps and humans however - does anyone have any info on that?

Posted by: Kári | August 6, 2009 9:35 AM

@David: OK. I'll believe you. I'm no biologist. Most of my biology comes from David Attenborough and he used to support the theory. However, you all must agree, that the amount of differences from humans and our other closest relatives is rather vast and there seems to be no explanations for it. I'll grant after studying this more via the website mentioned above, that a lot of what AAH proponents are saying is easily dismissed, but I would still like to see better "rationalisations" for what has happened between us and our cousins.

Why would we lose the hair? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Now we have to make clothes instead. And I'm not expecting the answer to be "HUMANS WERE AQUATIC". I'm just asking.

Also, regarding the webbed fingers; why would we develop them (and we don't know whether our immediate ancestors had more of them than modern humans do because the skin rots away after death and doesn't show up in fossils) out of the blue? It doesn't matter if lemurs have them or something - at least I wouldn't think so - if no closer relatives have them. Again, I don't necessarily expect the answer to be "HUMANS WERE AQUATIC". However, in this case, that seems like a logical conclusion. It looks like to me, that even though humans weren't aquatic or semi-aquatic at any point - conditions forced them to swim a lot. Our closest ape-cousins don't swim as much as we do. I used to be a swimmer and I'm telling you, having entirely webbed fingers would be very convenient for it. And not having hair is also a good thing. Have you noticed swimmers usually shave their body-hair off?

Posted by: Azkyroth | August 6, 2009 10:35 AM

But my question regarding the webbed fingers stands.

*looks at hand, looks up, raises an eyebrow* um...?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 6, 2009 11:07 AM

Most humans don't really have webbed fingers...

Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 6, 2009 11:56 AM

Sorry, BdN, didn't see your question (#39). The text is "The three little dinosaurs" and it's featured in a collection of essays called "The Berlin key". Seems he has a website (www.bruno-latour.fr) but I can't seem to access it at the moment so I can't tell you whether it's online, or whether there's an English version.

Posted by: Verster | August 7, 2009 3:58 AM

I think we all know that the AAH is bollocks. It's blatantly obvious that the Space Chimp Theory (SCT) is the most logical answer...

After all, why would our early ancestors need hair in a pressurized space suit?

Posted by: me | August 7, 2009 6:26 AM

Oh, hold on, there's a critique here:
http://www.aquaticape.org/bbc4_notes.html

Posted by: BdN | August 7, 2009 12:39 PM

@Christophe

No problem! Thanks for coming back and for giving me the link. I'm gonna have a look at it but it seems more like a humorous piece than scholarly work... Interestingly, in the heading, he writes that the English version was translated from a French one, itself translated from the original English one... I guess that gives more multilayered complicated literary analysis for the pomos out there...

D'après ce que je comprends, vous lisez le français. Alors si ce genre de trucs vous intéresse, je vous donne ici une référence que j'ai trouvée à la fois amusante et inquiétante. La psychanalyse a souvent tenté de trouver des liens avec la paléontologie étant donné qu'elle recherche des trucs provenant de notre subconscient en partie hérité de notre passé primitif (seulement à penser à Jung et son psychisme spinal...). Je suis tombé l'autre jour, par hasard, sur cet article emblématique de cette tendance : illisible et qui applique effrontément, sans les maîtriser, les concepts de la paléontologie : "L’évolution de la lignée humaine laisse paraître trois espèces successives et évolutives" + "La conjecture se complète ainsi : l’homme proviendrait d’une espèce animale dont la maturité sexuelle aurait eu lieu vers cinq ans, et une période glaciaire ou d’autres « grandes influences externes » [9] auraient provoqué la transformation vers l’humain. Il s’agirait d’une forme de néoténie [10], au sens actuellement retenu par les biologistes, due à un changement traumatique réel."

Ouaip... Lire ici.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 8, 2009 2:48 PM

Lungs transform to take in water

Wrong. Lungs are not derived from gills.

That is what AAT says.

Ah, so you've been shifting the goalposts drastically. But drastically.

Have you no decency, sir? At last, have you no decency?

Please visit

No. Get your shit together and publish in the primary literature.

Posted by: Renato Bender | August 20, 2009 2:16 AM

I and my wife (Nicole Bender-Oser) are studing since 1992 early and modern hypotheses on early hominin evolution. [Our work is not very knonw, since our disertations are written in German; we are beginning now to publish in English.] We came to the conclusion that, althoug the aquatic hypothesis shows some problems and its proponents do not agree about basic aspects of the "aquatic scenario", the basic idea of the original hypothesis proposed by the German pathologist Max Westenhöfer (1871-1957) and the British marine biologist Alister Hardy (1896-1985) contains very strong arguments. We think that the main problem with the aquatic hypothesis is the lack of a methodology for the comparison between hominins and other organisms.
Although the aquatic hypothesis has a very bad reputation in paleoanthropology, some things began to change in the last time. For instance, I began some months ago to write a PhD under the surpervision of Phillip V. Tobias in Witwatersrand University. Tobias has an excellent reputation as paleoanthropologist, and since years he believes that the aquatic hypothesis deserves to be analysed with more objectivity. In this PhD I analyze the arguments of the so called savanna hypotheses. I argue that these ideas did not begin with the discovery of first hominin fossils in South Africa in 1924, as commonly believed, but was proposed already 1809 and it was very popular in the time Raymond Dart first described his child of Taung (Australopithecus africanus)- the fossil material was "adapted" to the theoretical framework, and nobody noted this. Additionally, I present a method for the analysis between hominins and other organisms, what I call the convergence approach.

Posted by: Azul | September 3, 2009 6:38 PM

One question in my mind. About "evidences".

Pick bipedalism for example. There are many classical theories being proposed (e.g. thermoregulatory, provisioning, carrying models), scientists welcome them and are quite happy to accept them as legitimate/plausible hypotheses, and yet there's no evidence to support any of them.

But for AAH, which i recognize as a legitimate scientific hypothesis (some say it's pseudoscience, but since it strickly follows the principles of evolution and natural selection, i don't see it's unscientific), but scientists and public opponents keep asking for evidences, like we have to immediately prove it or else don't talk about it like a sinful thing.

Evidence is vital, but the fact is now we've too few hominid fossils in 6-4mya to prove anything. I assume that we should treat all hypotheses equally, until some new evidences pop up and prove or disprove any of them. If we tolerate classical hypotheses but not a bit for AAH, could we say it's double standard? Is it subject to personal preferences but not scientific principles?

Posted by: John Morales | September 5, 2009 1:51 AM

Azul,

P.S. do you really think a pointed stick can save u from a leopard?

The Maasai used to have a ritual where a young warrior would hunt a lion using only a spear.

So, yeah. It's possible.

Posted by: QrazyQat | September 11, 2009 8:04 PM

I noticed a couple of points made that I should address:

I agree that avoiding predation is not a good argument in AAH, not becauase the waters are more dangerous, but in fact ALL habitats are dangerous without any technology to protect us. In waters we have sharks (crocs and hippos are too slow, we can just walk away), in trees we have leopards, in grassland we have the big cats. It's equally helpless when facing each of the top predators anyway, so I don't find any reason to live or not live in a particular environment.

My site has a page on predators which explains why there's some big problems with aquatic predators and lesser problems with terrestrial predators. Bottom line is that terrestrial predators respond to bluffs, threats, and counterattack while sharks and crocs don't. Chimps do lose some members to big cats but obviously don't lose enough to wipe them out, and they don't do it just by running away or climbing trees. And in fact studies with radio-collared leopards show leopards often tend to actively avoid chimps; they're not the easy pickings we might imagine.

Finally, someone said that African crocodiles aren't found in saltwater -- couple of things there:

1) the newer versions of the AAT/H often, though not always, avoid saltwater as the proposed habitat, because for a number of reasons I started pointing out 15 years ago (and have on my site) it just doesn't make sense.
2) there were crocs in earlier times other than just Nile crocodiles
3) Nile crocodiles, although their primary habitat is freshwater, are found in saltwater, even so far out as Zanzibar (about 22 miles offshore). Most crocodilians seem to be tolerant of saltwater.

Posted by: amphiox | September 18, 2009 4:27 PM

"P.S. do you really think a pointed stick can save u from a leopard?"

Actually, yes it can. It only takes a single well aimed thrust to kill the cat.

At any rate, you have a better chance with a pointy stick than you have without one. And even if only 1/1000 stick carriers gets that lucky thrust in, that's one more survivor than the no-stick population, and that is enough.

Posted by: Marcel Williams | October 7, 2009 5:59 AM

First of all, there is hard fossil evidence that hominins went through a semiaquatic phase. Its called Oreopithecus bambolii which is usually referred to as 'the swamp ape'.

Between 9 to 7 million years ago,Oreopithecus inhabited the swamp forest of the ancient island of Tuscany-Sardinia apparently specializing in feeding on aquatic plants. Oreopithecus was also a biped with strange feet that possessed a highly divergent hallux (big toe). Of course, now we know that another hominin, Ardipithecus, was also a biped that possessed a similar divergent big toe.

But was Oreopithecus a hominin? The discoverer of the most complete skeleton of Oreopithecus, Johannes Hurzeler, argued until his death that it was. But is there any evidence?

If you compare the cranio-dental morphology of Oreopithecus with humans, australopithecines, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and gibbons you discover that humans and australopithecines have the most cranio-dental similarities to Oreopithecus while gorillas, chimps, orangs, and gibbons have very few similarities with the swamp ape. And you find a similar pattern with the postcranial evidence.

But human ancestors probably went through two semiaquatic phases in their evolution. The first was a freshwater semiaquatic phase and the second was a marine semiaquatic phase. How do I know this?

Well, I know enough about marine mammals to know that there's always a dramatic modification of the kidneys of marine mammals in order to deal with the ingestion of hypertonic fluids from the salt water environment. Being able to rapidly excrete excess salts from the body is essential for the survival of a marine mammal in order to avoid dehydration. Marine mammals have dealt with the problem of excess salt in their diets by developing kidneys with multiple medullary pyramids. This increase the surface area between the medulla and the surrounding cortex of the kidney, allowing for rapid processing and excretion of ingested hypertonic fluids. Most terrestrial mammals have unipyramidal kidneys except those that have semiaquatic marine ancestors. All catarrhine primates, including apes, have unipyramidal kidneys-- except for humans. Humans have a radically different kidney morphology. Humans have kidneys that are unusually large relative to those of apes with typically 8 to 18 medullary pyramids. Clear morphological evidence of a marine phase in human evolution, IMO.

M.F. Williams Bioscience Hypotheses(2008)1,127-137 Cranio-dental evidence of a hominin-like hyper-masticatory apparatus in Oreopithecusbambolii. Was the swamp ape a human ancestor?

M.F. Williams, Morphological evidence of marine adaptations in human kidneys, Med Hypotheses 66 (2006), pp. 247–257.

Posted by: Algis Kuliukas | October 27, 2009 6:55 AM

Dear Prof. Myers,
I am disturbed that an academic of your standing can only recommend a layman's web site, rather than any citation from the literature, as to why this idea might be wrong.
As someone who has a master's degree in human evolution (UCL, 2000) and have done 6 years of a PhD at UWA studying the idea. I know that the idea is actually very plausible if only one makes the slightest effort to scale back the claims and not exagerate them. To read you throw away dismissal that it is "nonsense" strikes me as being one based on ignorance especially in the light of the above.

I find myself doubting whether you've even read the web site, or if you have, to question how thoroughly. Do you really think it is a "scientific critique", as Jim Moore claims? When the most authoratative, balanced account (Roede et al 1991) is hardly mentioned, except to scrape out a few quotes out of context? When a few words of a reply to a sleazy letter allegedly sent to Tobias from some anonymous newsgroup poster is preferred to any proper citations of his published papers on the subject?

Some gullible people might be impressed by some of the shock horror headlines such as "Can AAT/Her research be trusted?" but if one digs a little, one finds that the worst allegations are really just insignificant errors or misrepresentations of Moore's own. Anyone that takes the trouble to check up on his allegations will find them underwhelming and hypocritical. He chides Morgan for not citing her sources but then he does so himself repeatedly when criticising proponents. His "critique" is very unbalanced and clearly aimed at discrediting the idea and Elaine Morgan in particular.

Do you think he is being honest when he says his objective in doing the web site is to do what proponents of the idea have always wanted "to take it seriously?" Since when is distorting ideas in order to ridicule them taking an idea seriously? And what about the URL? Would you be happy if a bunch of creationists in Texas ran a web site called www.Darwinsm.org simply for the purpose of discrediting it and performing a character assasination on the man himself?

I have written a critique of Jim's web site if anyone would care to read some of it. If you go to the trouble to look behind the headlines and the allegations you'll see that it's Jim Moore, more than any so-called "aquatic ape" proponent that is tryingg to pull the wool over people's eyes.

http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/Arguments/JimMoore/JMHome.htm

Really. Are you sure you want to be associated with this kind of thing? I sincerely hope you will reconsider, or else justify your support of this dodgy web site.

Algis Kuliukas

Posted by: Algis Kuliukas | October 27, 2009 7:55 AM

Just a few replies...

@Stephen Wells (4/8/9) #5
Yes, arguing that humans are better at ballroom dancing is such an intelligent counter-argument, isn't it? The trouble with this (and bike riding, mountain climbing and playing the trombone etc) is that they all require technology and cannot be done by 9 month infants. Swimming, on the other hand is best done naked and, with a bit of help from mum can be learned early than walking.
Can chimps do that? Mmm...

@Luke (4/8/9) #8
See above. Who's being really dumb?

@Cath the Canberra Cook (4/8/9) #10
Reports of the death of this idea have been greatly exaggerated.

@Fedor (4/8/9) #12
Why is this the "worst thing"? I think it's rather good actually. Good old Sir David. Someone with a bit of common sense.

@SEF (4/8/9) #27
So you're another who prefers dirt slinging web sites to proper scientific refutations?

@Greg Laden (4/4/9) #34
And orthodoxy isn't? So what, exactly, IS the orthodox explanation for bipedalism, hair loss, infant/mother adipocity, improved voluntary breath control and the small fact we are the best swimmers/divers among the apes?

@BdN #46
Yes, sure, explaining 26 traits in one way is less parsimonious than explaining it in six ways. Langdon's paper is tosh. If he can't discriminate between the plausibility of aliens coming down from outer space and the idea that the human phenotype might have been affected from moving through water he should resign. The fact that he made the later point ('fusiform torso' etc) just shows how much he misunderstood (and exaggerated the idea. The term "aquatic ape" was meant to be ironic but anthropologists are apparently too dumb to see it.

@Barbarian (4/8/9) #52
Well said!

@John Scanlon (4/4/9) #55
But why did you just trust Jim Moore? Why did you take all his allegations on face value?

@Knockgoats (4/4/9) #67
You miss the point. The one place our nearest relatives move predictively bipedally (unsupported by forelimbs) is in waist deep water. What a surprise!

@Ralph Johnson (4/4/9) #80
So when a respected anthropologist writes in support of the idea in the literature your response is to try to censor it out of existence? Why's that?

@Amy (4/4/9) #85
Well said. The term "Aquatic ape" is ironic. Of the apes which we know are most certainly NOT aquatic, we're the most aquatic.

@apaeter (4/4/9) #87
It saddens me that you were so gullible as to have been taken in by Jim's web site. I can assure you he is pulling the wool over your eyes.

@Tatarize (4/4/9) #90
I have a master's degree from UCL with distinction, done 6 years of a PhD, presented several papers at scientific conferences and had two papers published... all on this subject. So much for that idea.

@Sarcastro (4/4/9) #97
In other words... "we don't know". Many texts and uni courses still promote the savannah today as strongly as ever. If it wasn't the savannah that made us so different from chimps, what did?

@Windy (4/4/9) #107
Oh yes we have. (posed one that late.)

@Alan Kellogg (4/4/9) #108
You're exaggerating. No-one ever
claimed we were that aquatic.

@ Pierce Butler (4/4/9) #114
See www.RiverApes.com

@BdN (5/8/9) #128
Selection pressure need only have been tiny to have made a profound difference in phenotype. Think of human skin colour and latitudes.

Algis Kuliukas

Posted by: Algis Kuliukas | October 27, 2009 8:08 AM

@Nerd of Redhead (27/10/09) #177

Yes why didn't PZ Myer cite the literature but, instead, a wibe site by a layman who'se clearly got some serious loathing of the idea?

I'll show you my publications if you show me yours.

Who are you to dismiss my training? What are your quals?

If you want substance I can give you substance. Easy. We're the best swimmers of the apes. Normally Darwinists assume such major (and costly) differences are explained by natural selection, except here of course. Then the rules change because so many reputations would have to be called into question if this thing turned out to have been right all along.

How silly all those academics who'd sneered at the idea and referred you to Jim Moore's web site would look then!

Algis Kuliukas

Posted by: Algis Kuliukas | October 27, 2009 9:10 AM

Well you ring my "pseudo-rigour" alarm bells too. The fact that you have reacted to me with such hostile certainty when there is so little in the literature (and still no comment on PZ Myers choosing to cite a layman's web site rather than the literature) makes me think you're just ignorant about the idea. It would be very typical.

Masters Thesis: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/BipedalWadinginHominoidae.pdf

Published Paper: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/WadingforFood.pdf

I have another paper that has just been accepted too and I've given about a dozen presentations on the idea at scientific conferences.

Algis Kuliukas

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2009 12:55 PM

Yawn, Alarm bells accurate, again. True believers^TM are still true believers, evidence, or lack thereof, to the contrary.

Posted by: Algis Kuliukas | November 2, 2009 11:36 PM

@Stephen Wells 29/10/2009 #181

The evolutionary cost of swimming for an ape (i.e. one that is not aquatic) is that you might drown. Comparerd to moving on land this is a rather significant down side and likely to be the cause of some selection... as long as one makes the assumption that they might have swam sometimes.

It's a major difference because of all the apes we are clearly the best swimmers/divers.

Ballroom dancing needs technology. Swimming you can do naked. In fact it's best done naked. 9 month infants don't tend to do ballroom dancing but they can learn to swim.

Which part of this do you dispute?

Algis Kuliukas

Posted by: John Morales | November 2, 2009 11:55 PM

Algis:

It's a major difference because of all the apes we are clearly the best swimmers/divers.

And Ursus maritimus is the best swimmer of all the bears. OMG! I've discovered the ABH! :)

Posted by: John Morales | November 3, 2009 12:38 AM

Algis,

The idea behind the label is just that the differences between humans and the other apes can be explained by selection from moving through water. Why is that so incredible?

It's not incredible, heck, when I first heard it, it seemed plausible enough.

Thing is, seeming plausibility ain't enough.
And it's not the general public you have to convince, in any case; it's the experts.

For 50 years anthropology has basically sneered at this idea and done no science - no wonder they got it wrong!

Really. No science in 50 years, eh?

Here's your opportunity to do the science that they're not doing, and prove them wrong — think of the plaudits and honors that shall befall your name, the immortal fame!

Posting on a blog ain't gonna do it, though. :)

Posted by: Algis Kuliukas | November 3, 2009 6:21 AM

@John Morales (3/11/2009) #188

No science specifically investigating this idea, no. I gave a talk at this years AAPA in Chicago. As far as I know it was the first ever to report findings that backed Hardy's idea.

I've done my bit. Now I'm waiting to see the response. Will the field continue to ignore this idea for another 50 years or are they going actually start to take it seriously at last?

If they do it will be Alister Hardy, Elaine Morgan (most of all) and a few others who should take the bulk of the plaudits. Then I'll die happy just knowing that I did a little to help them get the credit they deserve.

Algis Kuliuka