Aquatic Ape – Attacked Again

David Attenborough’s latest BBC documentary indulges wishful thinking over evidence.

Internet magazine, The Conversation, has published an article by authors Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin entitled “Sorry David Attenborough, we didn’t evolve from ‘aquatic apes’ — here’s why.” They begin by claiming that the Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) suggests that a whole raft of our biological features stem from an aquatic phase in our evolution. Then they go on to imply that the “hypothesis” says that everything about those features could only have come about due to time spent in the water. Once they have set up this implausible falsehood, they proceed to cherry-pick it apart, beginning with the fact that the “hypothesis” had its beginnings a long time ago, and we’ve learned a lot since. They imply that the AAT is the plaything of fuzzy-thinking amateurs, while they represent clear-headed professionalism. In other words, it’s the same old thing all over again, only from a new generation of Savanna apologists.

Like their predecessors, they portray the AAT as an unscientific Just So Story, and say that all of the anatomical features can just as easily be attributed to other hypotheses. We’re left to presume that these other hypotheses are not Just So Stories, but Real Science. They run through all their Straw Men, showing that there are plausible explanations for all of them, thus implying that the Aquatic Ape explanations are not plausible. Then they accuse the proponents of the AAT of trying to use it to explain everything. That’s a typical ploy. You ask your opponent to support their argument, then when they’ve done so, you accuse them of overdoing it. It’s very handy. Either they don’t have enough, or they have too much. You simply ignore the sweet spot in between, all the while highlighting the weaker arguments and ignoring the stronger ones.

Their conclusion is nothing more than a reiteration of their opinions and beliefs. There’s nothing new here. It’s just the same old thing dressed up in new clothes. They say they’re making use of new knowledge and new ideas, but it’s obvious they’ve restricted themselves to those they agree with.

See for yourself.

Source: Sorry David Attenborough, we didn’t evolve from ‘aquatic apes’ – here’s why

rjb

About arjaybe

Jim has fought forest fires and controlled traffic in the air and on the sea. Now he writes stories.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Aquatic Ape – Attacked Again

  1. Traditional anthroplogists (Roberts, Foley, Stringer etc.) should inform first before talking: they still have pre-darwinian (anthropocentric) ideas about human evolution, they only attack their own outdated & irrelevant misinterpretations of what they believe “aquatic apes” are.
    How do they think Pleistocene archaic Homo (H.erectus, neandertals etc.) reached Flores, Crete, Sulawesi & other islands far overseas? Running over dry savannas??
    Large brains need lots of DHA (seafood), iodine & taurine (coast) etc.
    Anatomical, embryological, physiological, nutritional, paleo-environmental & all other evidence shows early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally along African & Eurasian coasts (+ later rivers), walking, wading & diving for waterside & shallow-aquatic (littoral) foods, instead of running over dry savanna (e.g. sweat=water+salt = scarce on savanna).
    David Attenborough’s “Waterside Ape” is 100% correct.
    Marc Verhaegen 2013 “The Aquatic Ape evolves: Common Misconceptions and Unproven Assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis” Hum.Evol.28:237-266.

  2. 🙂 Thanks, Arjaybe. Google “Attenborough Schagatay Brenna reply” (scientists disproving the anthropocentric “refutation” of prof.Roberts & Maslin).

    • arjaybe says:

      Thanks, Marc. I’m looking at the aquatic-human-ancestor.org article, and it seems to pretty effectively debunk the Roberts-Maslin article.

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