12
$\begingroup$

The aquatic ape theory suggests that many features that distinguish humans from their nearest evolutionary relatives emerged because the ancestors of humans underwent a period when they were adapting to an aquatic or semiaquatic way of life, but returned to terrestrial life before having become fully adapted to the aquatic environment. Is there any new evidence of this?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ interesting - I have not heard this theory. Did you have links/references to this from your own reading? $\endgroup$
    – Luke
    Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a book called "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" by Elaine Morgan which is definitely worth a read. $\endgroup$
    – c0zmic
    Jun 28, 2012 at 13:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm very interested in this too. David Attenborough once did a radio programme about the aquatic ape hypothesis, and you can listen to it free online. $\endgroup$
    – Rik Smith-Unna
    Jun 28, 2012 at 15:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In short: No. johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/… $\endgroup$
    – kmm
    Jun 29, 2012 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ See also: aquaticape.org/whyanthro.html $\endgroup$
    – Noah Snyder
    Jun 30, 2012 at 1:25

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

The Aquatic Ape theory has never gained wide acceptance. This is because it has never had strong evidential support.

The features supposedly supporting the hypothesis only do so under an extremely superficial analysis (e.g. the argument for bipedalism), frequently actually occur in other non-aquatic mammals (e.g. hairlessness in naked mole rats and rhinos, a descended larynx in red deer), show no sign of having arisen at similar times in the human evolutionary record (e.g. encephalisation evolved far later than bipedalism and bipedalism vastly predates hairlessness) and lack fossil evidence of having evolved near aquatic environments.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ yes - An idea is often not a hypothesis, and hypotheses often have no supporting evidence. $\endgroup$
    – shigeta
    Feb 19, 2013 at 17:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Article in the Guardian by an Editor of Nature on this: guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2013/may/07/… I wouldn't say this theory is creationism, but it does not have the weight of any evidence behind it, which is necessary for evolutionary theories. $\endgroup$
    – shigeta
    May 8, 2013 at 12:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .