Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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?

share|improve this question
    
interesting - I have not heard this theory. Did you have links/references to this from your own reading? –  Luke Jun 28 '12 at 10:45
1  
There is a book called "Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" by Elaine Morgan which is definitely worth a read. –  c0zmic Jun 28 '12 at 13:05
1  
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. –  Richard Smith Jun 28 '12 at 15:11
    
Thanks for the link Richard –  c0zmic Jun 28 '12 at 15:15
3  
In short: No. johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/… –  kmm Jun 29 '12 at 18:52

2 Answers 2

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.

share|improve this answer
    
yes - An idea is often not a hypothesis, and hypotheses often have no supporting evidence. –  shigeta Feb 19 '13 at 17:32
    
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. –  shigeta May 8 '13 at 12:53

We did not descend from aquatic apes, of course, although our ancestors were anatomically & physiologically not adapted to running over open plains as some anthropologists still believe. Instead, Pleistocene Homo populations simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia (800 ka they even reached Flores >18 km overseas), google, eg, “econiche Homo”. –eBook “Was Man more aquatic in the past?” introd.Phillip Tobias http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm –guest post at Greg Laden’s blog http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unproven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.