15 comments on “Aquatic Ape – The Theory Evolves

  1. I don’t know Jim…. I just don’t know…. Ostrich and have wings and don’t fly; we have brains to solve our problems but we create more of them than we solve… I think evolution is a misnomer. :/

  2. Only if you think that evolution means improving, or that it has a goal. Evolution isn’t a force, it’s a result. Change happens and things evolve as a result. There’s no question of aiming at a desired outcome.

    The source of your disappointment isn’t evolution.

    Okay, lecture over. Off you go.-)


  3. I am not ready to go yet! sulking.
    Wait a second… The result of evolution is survival of the species, no? Do I have that wrong too?

  4. The survival of an individual leads to the survival of that individual’s traits, which can be increasingly expressed in its species as a result. The change in traits over time, as different individuals produce slightly more offspring when their traits are slightly more favorable in changing conditions, is seen as evolution of the species. It is possible that it can lead to the extinction of the species if it evolves to be too closely tied to a particular environment which then changes.

    So it’s more like survival results in evolution than that evolution results in survival.


  5. Hmmm. For instance, Smaller cods survive now that there is a ceiling on the size that can be fished. That originally less desirable trait is spreading and is favorable to their survival now, and we see it as evolution… It does not imply improvement at all, just change…

    Thanks for setting me straight on that. Hmmm. Something I should have picked up on a while back.

  6. Just before human babies are born, they loose their lanugo; fine hair completely covering body. Why? Why don’t babies retain their hair until they must shed it for “brain cooling”?

  7. Hello, Susan. I don’t know why we shed our hair when we do. I’m not even sure that we are (relatively) hairless for any particular reason, whether for the savanna or the water. Those all feel like “Just So” stories to me. It might be for some other reason, or for no reason at all.

    Thank you for your comment.


  8. Hi all, some recent info on AAT.
    Human Evolution soon publishes the proceedings of the symposium ‘Human Evolution: Past, Present & Future’ in London 8-10 May 2013:
    SPECIAL EDITION PART 1 (end 2013)
    Introduction – Peter Rhys-Evans
    1. Human’s Association with Water Bodies: the ‘Exaggerated Diving Reflex’ and its Relationship with the Evolutionary Allometry of Human Pelvic and Brain Sizes – Stephen Oppenheimer
    2. Human Ecological Breadth: Why Neither Savanna nor Aquatic Hypotheses can Hold Water – JH Langdon
    3. Endurance Running versus Underwater Foraging: an Anatomical and Palaeoecological Perspective – Stephen Munro
    4. Wading Hypotheses of the Origin of Human Bipedalism – Algis Kuliukas
    5. The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Misconceptions and Unproven Assumptions about the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis – Marc Verhaegen
    6. The Epigenetic Emergence of Culture at the Coastline: Interaction of Genes, Nutrition, Environment and Demography – CL Broadhurst & Michael Crawford
    SPECIAL EDITION PART 2 (begin 2014) with 12 contributions

  9. 🙂 FYI, some other recent papers:

    -J.Joordens, S.Munro cs 2014 Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving, Nature doi 10.1038/nature13962
    -S.Munro 2010 Molluscs as ecological indicators in palaeoanthropological contexts, PhD thesis Univ.Canberra
    -J.Joordens cs 2009 Relevance of aquatic environments for hominins: a case study from Trinil (Java, Indonesia), J.hum.Evol.57:656-671
    -S.Cunnane 2005 Survival of the fattest: the key to human brain evolution, World Scient.Publ.Comp.
    -M.Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 Was Man more aquatic in the past? eBook Bentham Sci.Publ.
    -M.Verhaegen 2013 The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, Hum.Evol.28:237-266 google researchGate marc verhaegen, or independent academia edu/marcverhaegen.

    The open-plain ideas of human evolution are based on the traditional assumption (but logical error) that ape–>human = quadruped–>biped = forest–>savanna.
    All objective data (paleo-environmental, fossil, physiological, nutritional…) show that Pleistocene Homo did not run over the African plains (sweating water + salt = scarce in savannas), but simply followed the African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, beach-combing, diving & wading bipedally for littoral, shallow aquatic & waterside foods (rich in brain-specific nutrients, e.g. DHA).

  10. Hi all, thanks a lot.
    For an update on the aquarboreal (hominoids incl australopiths) littoral (early-Pleistocene Homo) theory, google e.g. “Lucy was no human ancestor 2020 verhaegen” + refs therein.

Please let us know what you think. No registration required.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.