Michael Odent on "Homo, the Marine Chimpanzee"

[Daecon]

And yet it moves.

So does a zombie.

There are several problems with this idea. The first is that convergent evolution predicts adaptations serving similar function, not necessarily similar structure. A platypus bill looks like a duck bill because it solves the precise same problem (sucking bugs out of mud); but the wings of a bat, a bird, and a bumblebee are products of convergent evolution in solving the problem of flight, but are structurally very different. Morgan's convergent evolution adaptations focus on structure.

The second problem is that evidence provided for the AAH is equally well accounted for by savanna-based adaptations without needing to posit an aquatic phase of human development.

• Loss of body hair: lower parasite load and maintenance through sexual selection. Furthermore, many aquatic mammals have actually kept their body hair.[12] Several other savanna species have also lost much of their hair including elephants, rhinoceroses, and naked mole rats. Although it is interesting to note that both elephants[13] and rhinoceroses[14] are theorised to have evolved from aquatic ancestors so they may not be the best counter-examples, though the only modern rhinoceros that spends much of its time in the water is the hairy rhinoceros.
• Diet: the fatty acids for the brain were present in sufficient quantities on the savanna.
• Diving reflex: terrestrial mammals show this too; there has been insufficient study of other apes to use this as evidence that humans are special in this regard.
• Body fat: distribution is similar to that of other primates.[citation needed] The quantities seen in present-day humans accord with those seen in domesticated mammals, i.e. we're quite well fed compared with wild dumb beasts. Humans have relatively more fat below the waist which serves as insulation when wading. [15]
• Bipedalism: the AAH compares humans to quadrupeds, but we went from quadrupedal locomotion to brachiation; bipedalism follows quite readily from that.
• Descended larynx: again, speech. The human larynx is not shaped like that of aquatic mammals, and descended larynxes are also seen in dogs, pigs, goats, monkeys and young chimps.[citation needed]
• Nose shape: again, speech. Speech was rather important in human development, oddly enough.
• Sebaceous glands: not actually found in aquatic mammals. Appear to be sexually dimorphic (highly active in adolescent human males, scent receptors highly active in adolescent human females).
• Swimming: humans really aren't that good at swimming. Dogs and cats do about as well.

A third major problem is there are actual characteristics indicative of aquatic mammals which humans notably lack. Aquatic mammals are testicond and have internal testes to insulate the gonads; humans are not testicond. Aquatic mammals also store large amounts of oxygen in the blood rather than the lungs; a trait lacked by humans.

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis cannot easily explain why these features were maintained after our ancestors supposedly left the water and moved to savannas. [16]

Further, there's good evidence that many of the traits claimed to fall under the umbrella of the aquatic ape hypothesis evolved at radically different points in human evolutionary history. Fossils from 4.4 mya display bipedalism, while still possessing small brains long after, and not evolving sparse body hair until later still.

One of the largest problem with the hypothesis is that since the 1960s, rather than improving and gathering evidence, the hypothesis has become more nebulous and vague. Rather than some specific aquatic phase, modern aquatic ape hypothesis supporters cite anything from fresh water millions of years ago, salt water habitation more recently, several different aquatic phases or a general proximity to water to a greater degree than other apes. Incidentally other apes and even some monkeys sometimes gather food from water and may stand bipedally to do this.[17][18]

There are also anti-science objections lodged against the creation of the hypothesis because Morgan had the idea first and then simply found differences between humans and other apes and composed ad hoc reasons associated with water. One could cherry pick data for many such pet theories without any merit behind them, while making them sound good on paper.

RationalWiki

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Yep, that's the big kill argument every time: "the hypothesis has become more nebulous and vague".
In other words, the key criticism is, "Yeah, beach ape, that's nice. What happened to that dolphin ape, you used to talk about?"
"Yeah, you made that up in your head, mate, because you didn't read the actual litterature. You turned Darwin into a chimp all on your own."

Let's take it again, 'cause it's clear you can't even be bothered to read these four tiny lines:

"My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.
— Alister Hardy, the original heretic, in 19-F'ing-60!!!​

Anything crazy in this? Anything at all? Any mermaids in there?

That's what it is. That's what it always was. And still is. Can we talk about what's wrong with the actual suggestion? Instead of the one you distort all on your own, because you need it all to go away?

Let's take it again: There... is... no... dolphin... ape. No one is taking our ancestors out to the middle of the sea, not untill the inventing of boating. It was always, ALWAYS, a beach ape!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But you're very, very eager to keep talking about them dolphins apes that were never there. It doesn't matter to you what people actually write!!!

 

[Michael 345]

Anything crazy in this? Anything at all? Any mermaids in there?

That's what it is. That's what it always was. And still is. Can we talk about what's wrong with the actual suggestion? Instead of the one you distort all on your own, because you need it all to go away?

Let's take it again: There... is... no... dolphin... ape. No one is taking our ancestors out to the middle of the sea, not untill the inventing of boating. It was always, ALWAYS, a beach ape!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Me thinks thou doust protest to much

Text yelling does not make any stupid idea any less stupid

Just as talking louder and slower to a person who doesn't understand your language make the words you utter magically translate into the hearers language

You are not SPEAKING our language

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Me thinks thou doust protest to much

Text yelling does not make any stupid idea any less stupid

Just as talking louder and slower to a person who doesn't understand your language make the words you utter magically translate into the hearers language

You are not SPEAKING our language

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????

Do you understand how much piss I have had to take over the years from ignorant people what can't even be bothered to read four fucking lines? I have lost all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago.

 

[Michael 345]

Do you understand how much piss I have had to take over the years from ignorant people what can't even be bothered to read four fucking lines? I have lost all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago.

Thou seems like you are upset for some reason

I wonder what it could be?

Oh well I guess I will never know

Oh hum back to my other forum

Changes windows tab while shaking head - now where was I before I was rudely interrupted by that mermaid man...?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Thou seems like you are upset for some reason

I wonder what it could be?

Oh well I guess I will never know

Oh hum back to my other forum

Changes windows tab while shaking head - now where was I before I was rudely interrupted by that mermaid man...?

You actually said it. MERMAID!

Not in there. Just not in there. But you don't give a fuck, do you? If the entire concept is sooo crazy, why do you distort the idea? Can't you ridicule the concept without exaggeration? Why talking about something it just doesn't posit?

Exactly. 'Cause Charles Darwin has to be a chimp, before it fullfills your prejudice. You don't have a case without distortion.

"Regrettably the name ["aquatic" ape] is its own worst enemy, I believe. That's what makes people laugh. Let's just talk about water and human evolution."
- Phillip F'ing Tobias

That's an ape going as deep as a sea otter. Show me a chimp that can do that.

 

[Michael 345]

But you don't give a fuck, do you?

Nope

Show me a chimp that can do that.

As soon as I find a stupid chimp I will

Oh look there's a savannah evolved version from a common ancestor of a chimp in your very own video

Why are you asking me to provide something you clearly have already?

Changes windows tab while shaking head - now where was I before I was rudely interrupted by that mermaid man - AGAIN...?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Oh look there's a savannah evolved version from a common ancestor of a chimp in your very own video

We didn't evolve on the savannah. That concept is long dead.

"Just 10 years ago, to a large London audience, with a histrionic gesture, I said, “The Savannah Hypothesis is no more! Open that window and throw it out!” At Sterkfontein and other South African sites and East African ones, these early hominids were all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals. Of course, if savannah is eliminated as a primary cause for selective advantage of going on two legs, then we are back to square one."
- Phillip ... F'ing ... Tobias (2005)

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6288724SdYwPZTP

Changes windows tab while shaking head - now where was I before I was rudely interrupted by that mermaid man - AGAIN...?

Saying it again: No mermaids. That was a bloody mockumentary on Animal Planet. What, you also think talking about giant dinosaur birds living 100 million years ago means paleontologists are lunatics that believe in fire breathing dragons?

Why do you need to distort the idea? Can't you laugh at it without it?

 

[billvon]

Anything crazy in this? Anything at all?

Yep. The claim that man lived in the water for a long period of time.

That's an ape going as deep as a sea otter. Show me a chimp that can do that.

Heck, apes have gone to the moon. Show me a chimp that can do THAT! (And Ham doesn't count.)

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Yep. The claim that man lived in the water for a long period of time.

Define long period of time. Sea otters and hippos go back to land, too.

What exactly is it you think, this idea is suggesting? (Or want it to, more to the point...)

"My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.
— Alister Hardy, the original heretic, in 19-F'ing-60!!!​

Four fucking lines. And you'll be damned, if you'll ever read them!

Heck, apes have gone to the moon. Show me a chimp that can do THAT! (And Ham doesn't count.)

'Cause those apes went into space buck naked and evolved traits, I suppose? Is that what you want me to be saying? Why do you distort to suit prepurpose? Isn't that the exact method of creationists?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zchjmnb

Use that damn brain already, sapiens.

 

[billvon]

Four fucking lines. And you'll be damned, if you'll ever read them! . . . .Why do you distort to suit prepurpose? Isn't that the exact method of creationists?

Much anger and hate in you, there is.

Why not find a forum more accepting of woo where people will give you the kudos you so desperately desire?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Much anger and hate in you, there is.

I have spent all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago. I'm done being pissed on for the impertinence of not being wrong.

 

[Daecon]

We didn't evolve on the savannah. That concept is long dead.

Why do you think that?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Why do you think that?

The scientific method.

"Just 10 years ago, to a large London audience, with a histrionic gesture, I said, “The Savannah Hypothesis is no more! Open that window and throw it out!” At Sterkfontein and other South African sites and East African ones, these early hominids were all accompanied by woodland and forest species of plants and animals. Of course, if savannah is eliminated as a primary cause for selective advantage of going on two legs, then we are back to square one."
- Phillip ... F'ing ... Tobias in 2005 (fella just dug up half the South African hominin fossil archive, doesn't know what he's talking aboot...)​

The Savannah Hypothesis and the Mighty Hunter were 19th and 20th century racist and sexist assumptions based on the Eurasian ice age mammoth hunters being the first stone age culture to be studied in detail by paleoanthropology. Those big game hunting cultures are no more representational of human evolution than mountain cultures. Their Russian grassland habitat were just moved to the African continent, when white paleoanthropology was forced to move their research focus to black, black Africa after the rebellion of Raymond Dart.

We're an old fishing ape, move on. THAT's what's supported by the evidence. The grassland scenario never was.

 

[billvon]

I have spent all my patience for human stupidity a long time ago. I'm done being pissed on for the impertinence of not being wrong.

Apparently you enjoy those golden showers, because you keep posting here. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Apparently you enjoy those golden showers, because you keep posting here. Whatever floats your boat.

I'm not letting you go quietly into that night. We're on the brink of the next world war, and you're telling me to leave you to your pigheaded ignorance???

Give me a straight answer. Why is it such nonsense that we should've been that old beach ape? Considering that we still are.

Vertical bipedalism, women not tearing when giving birth in water, big ass mammalian brain needing DHA and iodine only found in adequate quantities in seafood, sporting damn good breath control allowing a fat ape to speak and dive longer than a sea otter, having lost almost all its fur and grown a hooded nose that can't smell worth a damn but keeps water out of the cranial cavities, all while it's sweating and crying salty tears.

And y'all keep chanting that there's no evidence. Look into a god damned mirror.

 

[Daecon]

Why are you so invested in your pet theory being accepted regardless of the shaky and circumstantial evidence? It's like you really really need this hypothesis to be accepted as The One True Truth (tm).

Is it really so bad if the aquatic ape hypothesis is inaccurate, or dare I say it... mistaken?

 

[CEngelbrecht]

Why are you so invested in your pet theory being accepted regardless of the shaky and circumstantial evidence? It's like you really really need this hypothesis to be accepted as The One True Truth (tm).

Is it really so bad if the aquatic ape hypothesis is not true?

When was the first time you understood that we're standing on a giant ball hurling through an everlasting cold and dark void? Or why there are earthquakes and volcanos and tsunamis? You ever scratched the back of your head, not understanding how people could've been spurned or even burned just for discovering such things?

How the fuck can you expect me to keep my mouth shut about this knowledge? Especially when witnessing this grotesque slandering of its discoverers. All over again.

None of you can tell me why this splash-splash ape is wrong. 'Cause it most likely isn't. All you give me every bloody time are them fuckin' mermaids, running away screaming from the actual argument. 'Cause you don't have a case against the actual argument, even though you desperately want one.

"During the last few years, when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleoanthropologists and other experts, I have often asked them to tell me, please, exactly why Elaine Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic theory. I haven’t yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have also wondered the same thing."
- Dan Dennett, "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (1995)

 

[billvon]

Why is it such nonsense that we should've been that old beach ape? Considering that we still are.

Posting pictures of nude women, hoping to bolster your case, is a pretty sad strategy. You claim that talking about "tits" (which you brought up) is a poor debating strategy, then you post pictures of naked women. Foolish of me to expect anything more, I guess.

In any case, some quotes from an article by Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: (sorry, no nudie pictures)
===============
All the suggested anatomical and physiological adaptations [ascribed to the aquatic ape theory] can be explained by other hypotheses, which fit much better with what we actually know about the ecology of ancient hominins. Hairlessness, for instance, is only a feature of fully aquatic mammals such as whales and dolphins. Semi-aquatic mammals such as otters and water voles are extremely furry. Sexual selection and adaptations to heat loss better explain our pattern of body hair. Sexual selection may also explain our body fat distribution, which differs between the sexes. Voluntary breath control is more likely to be related to speech than to diving.
. . .
Compared with other animals, we are not actually that good at swimming, and our skin leaks as well, letting in water so that our fingers become prune-like after a long bath.

What about walking on two legs? That’s something all apes do a bit of – while wading in water, certainly, but also while reaching for fruit, performing aggressive displays or simply moving around in trees. If we evolved from ancestors who already stood up in trees, we don’t need an extraordinary explanation for why we ended up standing on the ground rather than running around on all fours.

. . . .there is absolutely no trace of a hominin ancestor as aquatic as that described by Hardy and Morgan.

We also have evidence our ancestors had to survive periods of extremely dry climate with little or no aquatic resources. Coping with these highly variable, patchwork environments required behavioural flexibility and co-operation, and our large brains and ultra-social nature likely emerged as a result. This flexibility ultimately led to the invention of culture and technology.

The original idea, and certainly Elaine Morgan’s elaboration of it, became an umbrella hypothesis or a “Theory of Everything”; both far too extravagant and too simple an explanation. It attempts to provide a single rationale for a huge range of adaptations - which we know arose at different times in the course of human evolution. Traits such as habitual bipedalism, big brains and language didn’t all appear at once – instead, their emergence is spread over millions of years. It’s nonsense to lump them all together as if they require a single explanation.

Despite the evidence stacked up against the theory, it is strangely tenacious. It has become very elastic, and its proponents will seize hold of any mentions of water, fish or shellfish in human evolution, and any archaeological sites found near coasts, rivers and lakes as supporting evidence. But we must always build our hypotheses on, and test them against, the hard evidence: the fossils, comparative anatomy and physiology, and genetics. In that test, the aquatic ape has failed – again and again.
================