Elaine Morgan talks on the Aquatic Ape Theory (a TED talk)

[Kars]

Hi people, nice to see discussion going on, I hope communication and clarity improves with time passing.

Not taking sides, like most people do choosing between 'experts', I like to note that I observe that some people appear to me emotionally involved (invested?) with one or the other stance.

What I find regretful is the absence of people trying to find some deeper understanding.
I don't think it's a mere choice between the just two ideas, there can be more!

Science and peer reviews: it can and is driven by money, culture and peer pressure.

Current Humans special?
I find somehow Humans can do of many things something. Our brain makes a big difference. Apart from putting humans on top of the hill, it also in a way makes us unique or 'special'. But almost any animal has some unique set of features making them special too.
I'm not in the political cultural movement of downgrading the value of human life, to have a culture where human life is valued in economic numbers. Reading about 20th history we know where this concept leads to.

Love,Courage and Water,

Kars

 

[rxcnc2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rxcnc2
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht
If it's all BS, it should dissipate at some point.
Are you sure?????
Wet, you are the expert on the AAT

I want to clarify, because it seems that my comment to CEngelbrecht has been taken by Wet as sarcasm about AAT .
The notion that BS disappears by itself when proven wrong is just wishful thinking. We are often fascinated by theories and speculations because of their appeal to some side of the popular mind, even in the face of total lack of proof or scientific basis. This is not meant specifically against AAT, but is a general fact.

About AAT, I wait to read some more compelling arguments.

 

[rxcnc2]

Which is the most aquatic ape?

On this forum we are used to freedivers reaching tens of meters, but we forget that it's a quality that we learn and have to train. In general, humans are not only unable to reach 10m without fins/weights, but especially they are quite scared of the simple thought.

As for newborns being comfortable in water, and specifically water births, we forget that it's a very nice concept but so impractical that only some rich developed societies will do that. You need special assistance, a big pool of warm and clean water, etc. It is not a natural thing occurring in nature. Probably it would work for gorilla mothers too, given a chance.

 

[DivingDane]

hmmm very interesting, shame we dont have strong evidance on both sides.

spending my fair share of time in a Uni studying aquaculture, aquatic science, aquatic reproduction etc doesnt have much to lend to this argument.

although i would Dearly love for this to be factual and know that in some way we are ment for the water it is highly unlikely that we are more closely related to the water than most other mammals.

yes the fact that all life came form the ocean at some stage shows that we too in some way came from the coean but to say that there was actually a time in our direct past that we lived an Aquatic or even truely semi aquatic life is fairly unlikely.

and of the few improvements we have for being in the water i would say that they are more recent than anything else.

we do have cultures that live by the sea and their entire lives rely on the sea, but i dont think any genetic advantages are there.

we have learned over time to deal with being in water and that we can gain food etc. from it but i think that is about as far as it goes.

all though many of us including myself FEEL a huge affinity for our oceans and the feeling of coming home when we dive i unfortunatly feel this Aquatic Ape idea is VERY unlikely.

However i as with the rest of us are more than willing to be proven wrong.

DD

 

[wet]

in this corner the big eared principled swimming chimp
and in this corner the small eared factual aquatic gorilla
ding! :ko

 

[DeepThought]

Apparently Elaine Morgan has a new book coming out, and it's available online:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dylan.morgan/elainemorgan/Naked Darwinist.pdf

 

[rxcnc2]

Thanks for pointing that one out. I read it quickly (in fact, one hour is enough and probably it took her a couple of weekends to write it).

Well, cleverly written for the masses. It presents a number of oddities, which clearly make people wonder and implicitly doubt the "standard assumptions" about human evolution. Even more cleverly, she never actually says what the Aquatic Ape Theory is, she only counters rather vague statements against the theory with equally vague statements.
Example:
Against: “If our ancestors had been aquatic we would be more stream-lined.”
Pro: "We are in fact far more stream-lined than any other primate."

As the work of a popular writer, I could be impressed. As that of a scientist, not much.

 

[efattah]

Generally speaking, when you have two 'competing' theories, very often neither one seems to be the ideal answer. The savanna (traditional) theory is quite useless as it is unable to explain many basic things. The aquatic ape theory seems good on some points but weak in others.

Usually in situations like this, the 'weakness' of each theory is caused by the fact that both are false.

I would throw in another hypothesis. If you look at the historical writings of the original pygmie natives of Tibet, as well as the Sumerians, two completely separate cultures, they both have identical explanations of the origin of humanity. According to them, humans are a hybrid species created by an alien race, joining the DNA of the aliens with the DNA of an ape. According to the Sumerians, this act of genetic engineering or 'creation' of the new species occurred in the tigris euphrates river valley, which the Annunaki called E-den. Both the tibetans and sumerians place this event approximately 400,000 years ago. The Sumerians themselves were an astonishing jump in complexity over previous civilizations, and where did they learn all of that? According to the Sumerians, they learned all of it from the Annunaki.

This would provide a root event for the 'creation of the first man' in the 'garden of Eden,' as religious texts put it.

Further, those people who look for evolutionary pressures which created all of the characteristics of humans would be out of luck, because if this historical account were true, then there would be no such evolutionary pressure. Perhaps the Annunaki alien race (thus called by the Sumerians) were aquatic on their own planet.

People interested in that hypothesis should read work written by Zecharia Sitchin.

Anyway, obviously many people will laugh at such a 'preposterous story,' except that if you look at it without prejudice, you'll find fewer loopholes in it than in either the savanna or aquatic ape theory.

 

[jome]

Isn't it likely that humans evolved in a variety of conditions (land, sea, mountains, winter, hot, cold, wind, rain, north, south, east, west) and are thus a good (or poor, which way you look at it) compromise on everything?

If not, then I support Eric's view

 

[rxcnc2]

According to the Sumerians, this act of genetic engineering or 'creation' of the new species occurred in the tigris euphrates river valley, which the Annunaki called E-den. Both the tibetans and sumerians place this event approximately 400,000 years ago.

I think that, if there is one thing of which we can be sure of today among many uncertainties, is that homo sapiens originated in Africa, and started migrating out of it relatively recently - much later than 400,000 years ago. There seems to have been, after hundreds of thousands of years of being almost dormient, a spike in human mobility and activity starting about 50,000 years ago. This is generally accepted, based on gene tracing.

Almost every culture has its account of their origins, and surprisingly (or perhaps not) almost none of them match. Coincidences are bound to occur, and it is very human to forget about the other 99% things which are obviously incongruous. That some civilizations were way ahead of their neighbours at some point in time is not unique to the Sumerians. Take the Egyptians, and later the Maya. Some like to see a rocket-pilot in a sculpture of a Mayan king, and some try to link the culture-burst of the Egyptians with Atlantis.
An intriguing mystery is that the Dogon in west Africa have known for centuries that the star Sirius has a companion. The companion exists, but it is so hard to detect with modern telescopes (forget the naked eye) that after being debated for over 100 years it has been confirmed only in 1995. How could they know about it? Obviously, some conclude, they have been told by aliens. But I also like to remind that almost all stars have companions (the Sun is an exception), and Sirius just happens to be the brightest star in the sky.



We have to keep an open mind, but frankly I like evidence and facts.

 

[wet]

Generally speaking, when you have two 'competing' theories, very often neither one seems to be the ideal answer. The savanna (traditional) theory is quite useless as it is unable to explain many basic things. The aquatic ape theory seems good on some points but weak in others.

Agree!

I would throw in another hypothesis. If you look at the historical writings of the original pygmie natives of Tibet, as well as the Sumerians, two completely separate cultures, they both have identical explanations of the origin of humanity. According to them, humans are a hybrid species created by an alien race, joining the DNA of the aliens with the DNA of an ape. According to the Sumerians, this act of genetic engineering or 'creation' of the new species occurred in the tigris euphrates river valley, which the Annunaki called E-den. Both the tibetans and sumerians place this event approximately 400,000 years ago.

Eric, an amazing story indeed.