Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on June 21, 2011 at 9:45am

Here's a 10-minute PBS video, from NOVA, called "Lice and Human Evolution".  It aired last February.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on June 15, 2011 at 1:07pm

I have to add this too. I'm in the process of reading Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" and as I was reading a few moments ago, he mentions this theory..but only for a moment...

 

"Other hypothesis of bipedal evolution invoke the benefits of height , perhaps standing upright to look over long grass; or to keep the head above water while wading. This last is the imaginative 'aquatic ape' theory of Alister Hardy, ably championed by Elaine Morgan." 

 

He then goes on to talk about other theories related to bipedalism. It seems to me that Dawkins favors the 'taking food home' theory as to why we began walking on 2 legs. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 15, 2011 at 1:28pm

"Since I hadn't heard of this, I'm curious as to solid refutations of the idea."

It is about as scientific as religion. Humbug presented by highly entertaining people. Her original book has a total of 53 scientific citations (a mere 13 since 2005) including being ripped apart in the prestigious New Scientist. 

"Anyone discussed it at length in a class?"

Not in class, but I did once ask a professor of evolutionary biology about it. She just rolled her eyes at me, interpret it however you wish. I did not dig further.

"Any chance they fit any part of Aquatic Ape Hypothesis?"

Ardi and Lucy were both found in land-locked Ethiopia. So I'd say that it would be highly unlikely.

"Any chance of cross breeding and keeping us as one species while some of these changes happened?"

Yes, but in the same probability category as God.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel on June 15, 2011 at 1:41pm

I dislike that everyone is so close minded about this. I too just learned about this hypothesis and believe there might be something to it. Coastal faring ape-like creatures needed to adapt to their newly found environment. They change slightly to to be more adept at swimming and catching fish. They begin exploring, mate with landlocked ape-like creatures and we get a mixture of the two. I don't know how this is so impossible to believe or fathom. It really does seem that everyone in the scientific community adheres to the status quo a bit too fervently, terrifyingly reminiscent of another group that can't allow their long held beliefs to be questioned. Just in the past couple of hours of reading I've become very dismayed with the scientific community at large for being so jaded and pig-headed about a hypothesis that might have some merit. Anyone else agree?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 15, 2011 at 1:52pm

I'm not being close minded, just applying the same scrutiny I once did to religion. ;)

The hypothesis is neither new nor valid, and about as interesting as Lamarckism or Lysenkoism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on June 15, 2011 at 1:52pm

Agreed. Like Elaine Morgan said, this shouldn't be grouped with the Yeti and such things. It does have some potential behind it and I think it should be looked into further.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 15, 2011 at 2:09pm

Bigfoot, homeopathy, Däniken, anti-vaccine, contrails, Truthers etc..

"You have to believe in something, right?" ;) 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on June 15, 2011 at 3:14pm

There is a signifcant difference between this being a hypothesis that fits some of the information, and bigfoot or anti-vaccine. Those others that you have listed don't have any reason to exist and it carries with it an extreme rejection. There may be no reason to accept. It may not have a single grain of truth. But it's pretty insulting and stiffling to science to ridicule someone for being wrong. If we had no conceptual thinkers willing to be wrong, we wouldn't make progress out of fear of being wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel on June 15, 2011 at 3:23pm

Thank you for putting into words what I could not. Gaytor's got my back! lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 15, 2011 at 3:28pm

Yes, even if the idea is not worth actively investigating, it shouldn't be ridiculed without proper investigation.  I feel the same way about many conspiracy theories - even if they are wrong, I think it's equally wrong to automatically ridicule them just because of the template of the theory.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on June 15, 2011 at 3:27pm

As I have understood it the hypothesis was presented in the mid-seventies, investigated through the eighties, rejected in the nineties and ridiculed in the noughties. In the tens it has left academia and been taken up by those who are either scientifically illiterate or dogmatic.

Riddle me this, are there any semi-aquatic mammals which have thick fur? (hint: Otter)

Addendum: There was one scientific study presented in prestigious the Lancet which linked MMR and autism. The hypothesis has since been soundly refuted. In other words, exactly the same story as AAH.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaytor on June 15, 2011 at 9:20pm

I think that you are starting to argue with yourself a bit. I'm fine with the hypothesis being incorrect. Nelson's link as the first response was enough to make me doubt it.

The difference between Aquatic Ape as a proposed hypothesis at one time and the Autism study is faked information. If we treated everyone whom came to the wrong conclusion as those that faked information, you wouldn't expect that to be stifling to new ideas? 

I just hadn't heard the idea and was looking for info on it. It worked and others were introduced to the idea too. Now they can have the chance to accept or reject it. But tossing it out as ever possible would be contrary to science in the sense that if we found evidence to support it, we should come back to it. If we don't, then it stays in the bag with the rest of the ideas that just don't seem to fit. But I'm not a scientist, it's just my lay understanding of how it's supposed to work. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page