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.
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.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
Couldn't our capability to dive for food be termed semi or partially semi aquatic though? Humans are certainly drawn to water.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.
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.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.
It's interesting we are the only homo that can dive to exploit shellfish ect some adaptations def happened somewere .I often feel like a fish out of water...so maybe there is some truth to the theory.
Exactly but we can get the most nutrition most easily from coastal enviroments.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.
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.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.
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.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?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.
Shellfish middens everywere? We literally can dive deep for our food unlike apes we have adapted slightly to do so.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?
Mole rats don't dive for seafood humans doNope, 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
Couldn't our capability to dive for food be termed semi or partially semi aquatic though? Humans are certainly drawn to water.
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.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.