Semi Aquatic ancestor theory

[Toddy]

Ah, well yes, we are well equiped for coastal environments, and worldwide people have thrived there but we're not 'adapted' to live there. It's just one of the chosen habitats that we exploit.

 

[Poacherman]

Nope, just nope.

It's based on the premise that we have mostly fur free skins....well so do mole rats.

We share the vast majority of our genes with the other great apes; 98.8% iirc.
Of course the corollary is that monkeys are 98.8% human

Anthropologists don't take the AAH theory seriously. No fossil evidence, and the lady who postulated it did so as a feminist take agin Desmond Morris' very male centred one on human development.

The reality is that the things that folks comment upon as being developments because of aquatic living are actually not related. They are seperate developments and they are present in the other great apes too. They're not a result of aquatic living.

Pretty sure there's an easily absorbed big Wiki article about it.
I'll find a link, easier that quoting dozens of archaeology and anthropology texts.

M

We definitely thrive on seafoods were obv close to apes but we evolved to fill many niches coastal being one look at the Moken people.

 

[Paul_B]

Gorillas also wade through marshes to get to food but they're no more aquatic than any other animal that goes to a variety of places to get food. AIUI those primates that get into hot water do so to get warm and stay warm not to feed. In fact I doubt there's anything to eat in those hot pools. The AAH theory was about feeding in water. They are not feeding so surely they don't support AAH.

As to mammals evolving into aquatic or non aquatic animals, AIUI it's happened several times in the paleontology record. It's about responding to geological time changes in climate and water levels and is based on evolutionary pressures I believe. However that doesn't help the idea that humans, I assume homo and other hominid genus, were aquatic in lifestyle as a hominid genus as opposed to another genus or even family completely. Same with that evolutionary tree for dolphins. The aquatic isn't the land animal predecessor. The AAH seems to me to imply a land animal shape being aquatic because they had features that true aquatic animals have irrespective of the fact that land animals might also have them in some cases.

There will be a cognitive bias type that recognises that basic lack of logic over those few features vs the many that don't back the hypothesis.

 

[Poacherman]

Ah, well yes, we are well equiped for coastal environments, and worldwide people have thrived there but we're not 'adapted' to live there. It's just one of the chosen habitats that we exploit.

Couldn't our capability to dive for food be termed semi or partially semi aquatic though? Humans are certainly drawn to water.

 

[Poacherman]

Gorillas also wade through marshes to get to food but they're no more aquatic than any other animal that goes to a variety of places to get food. AIUI those primates that get into hot water do so to get warm and stay warm not to feed. In fact I doubt there's anything to eat in those hot pools. The AAH theory was about feeding in water. They are not feeding so surely they don't support AAH.

As to mammals evolving into aquatic or non aquatic animals, AIUI it's happened several times in the paleontology record. It's about responding to geological time changes in climate and water levels and is based on evolutionary pressures I believe. However that doesn't help the idea that humans, I assume homo and other hominid genus, were aquatic in lifestyle as a hominid genus as opposed to another genus or even family completely. Same with that evolutionary tree for dolphins. The aquatic isn't the land animal predecessor. The AAH seems to me to imply a land animal shape being aquatic because they had features that true aquatic animals have irrespective of the fact that land animals might also have them in some cases.

There will be a cognitive bias type that recognises that basic lack of logic over those few features vs the many that don't back the hypothesis.

Iv never seen a gorilla dive deep for shellfish though semi aquatic is a broad term doesn't mean you literally have to live in the water.

 

[Paul_B]

Humans can exploit what opportunities are available. That doesn't make the locations of the opportunity our habitat. Just because we can dive down to get scallops doesn't make the water our habitat just a temporary visitor to get food.

Aquatic or semi aquatic surely requires full or partial adaptation to the water environment. We do not have that. We are generalists that can get by when there's something to exploit.

 

[Poacherman]

I often feel like a fish out of water...so maybe there is some truth to the theory.

It's interesting we are the only homo that can dive to exploit shellfish ect some adaptations def happened somewere .

 

[Poacherman]

Humans can exploit what opportunities are available. That doesn't make the locations of the opportunity our habitat. Just because we can dive down to get scallops doesn't make the water our habitat just a temporary visitor to get food.

Aquatic or semi aquatic surely requires full or partial adaptation to the water environment. We do not have that. We are generalists that can get by when there's something to exploit.

Exactly but we can get the most nutrition most easily from coastal enviroments.

 

[Poacherman]

There's also the aquatic dinosaur hypothesis which may have credibility for some species of dinosaur. Spinosaurus is now regarded as probably semi aquatic.

Check out 'morphic resonance' if you fancy having your brain addled by another crackpot theory.

Semi Aquatic is a very broad term there are literally shellfish middens we obviously evolved to eat meat and seafood but we're also well equipped for coastal living it doesn't mean we literally live in the water like dolphins.

 

[Poacherman]

Humans can exploit what opportunities are available. That doesn't make the locations of the opportunity our habitat. Just because we can dive down to get scallops doesn't make the water our habitat just a temporary visitor to get food.

Aquatic or semi aquatic surely requires full or partial adaptation to the water environment. We do not have that. We are generalists that can get by when there's something to exploit.

Do you believe the savannah is our habitat ? As common consensus implies ,I think the picture may be broader than that it's certainly easier to survive on the coastline.

 

[Poacherman]

Humans can exploit what opportunities are available. That doesn't make the locations of the opportunity our habitat. Just because we can dive down to get scallops doesn't make the water our habitat just a temporary visitor to get food.

Aquatic or semi aquatic surely requires full or partial adaptation to the water environment. We do not have that. We are generalists that can get by when there's something to exploit.

we are certainly more adapted than apes would u agree on that?

 

[Poacherman]

That's it, I'm 100% convinced - although I would have expected more fossil evidence - but hey, who needs evidence to come up with a theory?

Shellfish middens everywere? We literally can dive deep for our food unlike apes we have adapted slightly to do so.

 

[Poacherman]

Nope, just nope.

It's based on the premise that we have mostly fur free skins....well so do mole rats.

We share the vast majority of our genes with the other great apes; 98.8% iirc.
Of course the corollary is that monkeys are 98.8% human

Anthropologists don't take the AAH theory seriously. No fossil evidence, and the lady who postulated it did so as a feminist take agin Desmond Morris' very male centred one on human development.

The reality is that the things that folks comment upon as being developments because of aquatic living are actually not related. They are seperate developments and they are present in the other great apes too. They're not a result of aquatic living.

Pretty sure there's an easily absorbed big Wiki article about it.
I'll find a link, easier that quoting dozens of archaeology and anthropology texts.

M

Mole rats don't dive for seafood humans do

 

[Toddy]

Couldn't our capability to dive for food be termed semi or partially semi aquatic though? Humans are certainly drawn to water.

No, because our ears don't adapt. Look up exostoses ear. It's a known thing because our ears aren't meant to be submerged, and definitely not in cold water....which is anything that isn't blood heat really.

 

[Stew]

Iv never seen a gorilla dive deep for shellfish though semi aquatic is a broad term doesn't mean you literally have to live in the water.

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

 

[Pattree]

Found it! Now I’ll have to tidy my workroom again!!
So:
Alister Hardy suggested that humanity went through an interlude of aquatic behaviour rather than having an aquatic origins. A bit unlikely given the latest thinking about early hominid dispersal.

He bundled together all sorts of characteristics that he described as discriminating an aquatic human from a thoroughly terrestrial ape:
1. We’re good at swimming and diving.
2. Human infants can swim instinctively. ( On the other hand a premature baby is also very good at hanging onto a branch.)
3. Humans are the most naked of apes.
4. Our hair tracts are aquadynamic.
5. The human body is more aquadynamic as a whole.
6. We have a blubber layer not seen in other apes. (Why are you looking at me?)
7. An erect posture might have been useful standing in shoreline water.
8. Our hands and nails he describes as ideal for foraging rock pools.
9. Speech may have developed from breath control required for diving. (This has been said of whalesong.)
10. We have everso slightly webbed hands.
11. We exhibit a ”diving reflex“ which slows the heart and reduces oxygen requirement when underwater. (Do we?)
12. We have a protruding nostril shield when moving horizontally through water or diving. (You’re looking at me again!!!!)
13. We weep salty tears. (I’m told that the kidney thing isn’t sufficiently unusual among vertebrates to be useful.)
14. Somehow he suggests that a hymen is useful in water. Don’t ask me?
15. Apparently our buttocks protect our genitals. I did say, don’t ask me!

As has been pointed out, we now know that these characteristics developed at vastly different times in our evolution.

I wonder just how hungry our coast dwelling ancestor must have been to open an oyster, see what’s inside and then deliberately shove it down their neck??????

I would say I feel it is important that anthropologists (and those in Academe generally) publish these ideas so that they can be brought out into the light of day and critiqued before being carefully labelled and consigned to the archives.
No thinking should ever be hidden or destroyed.

 

[Broch]

They have been, weighed, measured, and been found wanting by the scientific community in general

General 'against' arguments (not my words):

1. Lack of Fossil Evidence: One of the primary criticisms of the aquatic ape hypothesis is the absence of fossil evidence. Fossil records of hominins show terrestrial adaptations.
2. Incomplete Aquatic Traits: Hardy's theory suggests that humans have various aquatic mammals features, such as webbed fingers and subcutaneous fat. However, these features are not unique to aquatic mammals.
3. Evolutionary Mechanism: Evolutionary adaptations typically occur in response to environmental pressures, and it is unclear what selective advantages an aquatic phase would provide in this context.
4. Alternative Theories: There are alternative, more widely accepted theories that explain human evolutionary adaptations.
5. Lack of Consensus: Most paleoanthropologists and biologists prefer alternative explanations based on the available evidence and the principles of evolutionary biology.

 

[Paul_B]

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

Quite! Black Swan!

 

[Toddy]

"I wonder just how hungry our coast dwelling ancestor must have been to open an oyster, see what’s inside and then deliberately shove it down their neck??????"....quoted from Pattree above

That just sums it up for me. When folks talk about eating duck heads, etc., I wonder just how hungry they must be. Shellfish really come into that category for me, or insects.

Ah, each to their own. We're omnivores but omnivores who pick the best, and cook the rest to make it so.

M

 

[Paul_B]

Humans are the most naked of apes? Not universally so. My barber creates a hairline at both ends of my neck! I'm not alone in that.

Proboscis monkey loves water, can swim up to 20m underwater!