Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aquatic Ape theory?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 6 of 22 (98354)
04-07-2004 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by SweeneyTodd
04-07-2004 2:45 AM


SweeneyTodd writes:
All righty then...the Aquatic Ape theory, from what I understand, basically states that early humans evolved aqautic envioronments instead of a more widely accetped savannah approach.
The "savannah" approach is not really the "other" approach.
This invocation of "savannah" is a kind of strawman commonly invoked by Morgan; it is often given in terms suggestive of an arid and treeless plain.
Morgan's model has no legs, scientifically speaking. There are excellent reasons why it has been mostly ignored by serious anthropologists, except a few people who enjoy refuting bad science.
A good site which debunks the aquatic ape in some detail is Jim Moore's Aquatic Ape Theory: Sink or Swim.
The major problem is unconstrained invocation of adaptionism to explain just about everything, with little attempt to test the hypothesis, and with poor research in developing the facts that are used in the explanation.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by SweeneyTodd, posted 04-07-2004 2:45 AM SweeneyTodd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 5:47 AM Sylas has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 8 of 22 (98364)
04-07-2004 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Cynic1
04-07-2004 4:24 AM


Cynic1 writes:
You forgot the breathing aspect of the theory, in that we are the only land mammal with breath control and a descended larynx, which are telling indications of a possible aquatic ancestor.
Also, the only other animal with a perpendicular gait is aquatic (the penguin).
We waste a great deal of salt to sweat, which would seem detrimental in the savannah.
No other land animal cries, but the walrus, otter, and various marine birds and reptiles do.
Our glands which secrete oil are huge compared to chimps, and these oil glands are often used for waterproofing.
The kinds of control which arise from a descended larynx have nothing to do with breathing in water; it is fairly plainly linked to vocalization. Furthermore, the larynx is not descended at birth; but comes later in childhood; but the breath control which Morgan also like to invoke is present from birth. The human larynx is nothing much like the larynx of truly aquatic animals. Fossil evidence also indicate that this arose much after the development of bipedalism.
The comparison with a penguins proposed as a line of evidence is hilarious. Have you seen a penguin walk?
The invocation of sweat is interesting; why would an aquatic animal need to sweat? The answer proposed by Morgan is that they need to get rid of salt (assuming salt water lifestyles). This is contradicted by the evidence, which shows that human sweat does not in fact have any excessive concentration of salt as is found in animals where salt secretion is an adaption.
The claim about animals crying is wrong. Most vertebrates shed tears. Morgan originally tried to distinguish "emotional" tears; but the association of this subtle distinction with acquatic adaptions is odd and ridiculous; and even the sources she was using proposed examples of other animals shedding emotional tears.
Morgan has indeed publically retracted some of her arguments about sweating and tears in response to various counter examples. See this Usenet post from May 1996. This is not, alas, prevent the recurrence of this rather dreadful argument.
I have not heard the one about oil before; but I'll bet that there is no credible basis or argument for thinking that humans ever had glands for water proofing or any need for such a thing. I'll look into it if you can give a reference.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 4:24 AM Cynic1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 8:02 AM Sylas has replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 9 of 22 (98369)
04-07-2004 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Denesha
04-07-2004 5:47 AM


Denesha writes:
Sylas writes:
The "savannah" approach is not really the "other" approach.
I'm unfortunately not knowledgable in primates ethology but I can't believe that aquatic was a safe place to live in the context of he is exposed. The Savannah was also under the rule of large predators but the space was wide open.
You can't reach the same conclusion near or in a pool. Never heard about crocodiles, thirsty felidae?
Sorry, I don't quite understand this question. My point is that "savannah" is usually invoked by Morgan in the context of a kind of strawman of an arid treeless plain to set against her own even more absurd ideas.
There are various notions for the kind of environment in which humans developed. The notion of a treeless savannah is not a serious contender.
As for your point about predators... it is absolutely correct. Morgan has been known to invoke escape from predators as one of the reasons for an aquatic phase in human evolution. This shows a startling ignorance of how to keep away from predators, and fails to account for how ludicrously ill adapted we are for using water as an escape route.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 5:47 AM Denesha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by SRO2, posted 04-07-2004 6:40 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 16 by Denesha, posted 04-07-2004 8:41 AM Sylas has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 17 of 22 (98395)
04-07-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cynic1
04-07-2004 8:02 AM


Cynic1 writes:
I was operating off of her original book, and her theory sounded interesting. I just wanted to fill in the rest of the tenets of the theory that were missed. I apologize for posting falsified data, I haven't read it for a while.
Hey, no problem. It's good to post questions and comments, and on a web forum it is fine to post material off the cuff. References are good if you have them, but there is nothing wrong with posting ideas from not quite remembered old sources and throwing them into the mix.
I'm a bit brusque with the theory; but that does not carry over to people who bring them up for discussion!
I'll welcome engagement with anyone who would like to defend the model in more detail; it might be illuminating. I won't pull punches on ideas; but they'll be aimed at ideas, not at people who bring them up for us to discuss.
I'll do some research on that oil thing, independent of Morgan, but I doubt I'll find anything. The penguin comparison was hers, by the way, and I almost left it out. I didn't really think the comparison between a human and a bird was relevant, but she seemed to think it was important.
Most (all?) of the aquatic ape stuff appears to have this character; odd and usually strained parallels with aquatic animals. If they were better founded this could be a legitimate basis for a real scientific model; parallels are okay. But the penguin one was amusing... by all means see if you can find something on oil glands.
Best wishes -- Sylas
(Edit to add the first quote. Don't know how it got left off.)
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 04-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cynic1, posted 04-07-2004 8:02 AM Cynic1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024