TED: "Aquatic Apes"

[SkinnyDevil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwPoM7lGYHw

[goodsamaritan]

Hey, at her age she still rocks the boat.

My synthesis is evolution -> quantavolution (evolution in steroids) -> some aquatic time.

[SkinnyDevil]

Evolutionarily speaking (with regards to humans), how is "quantavolution" different from punctuated equilibrium or evolutionary saltation?

For that matter, in more general terms how does it differ from catastophism?

[goodsamaritan]

This is quantavolution

http://www.quantavolution.org/index.html

Yes Catastrophism is involved.  Evolution doesn't happen "slowwwly"... it happens in jumps when drastic earth changes happens.

I haven't read punctuated equilibrium or evolutionary saltation - I'll google for that.

A nice catastrophism explanation and animation is at http://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

Back to aquatic theory, I do know that shellfish and sea weed may have been staple foods as they may have been very easy, very clean and very much abundant during unpolluted times.

[JaredBond]

I heard of this a while ago and instantly believed it.  It makes a lot of sense.  It explains why we are hairless (which is an odd thing), why our genitals are comparatively withdrawn into the body, how we eased into walking upright, and our outward stores of fat.  I can't remember why but it supposedly explained why women have breasts at all times and not just when lactating, another difference we have from apes (maybe that was just a trait shared with other aquatic animals).

One aspect I would disagree on as evidence, however, is the fact that the omega 3s DHA and EPA make up a big part of our physiology, including our brains.  They say that this couldn't happen unless seafood was a main part of our diet.  First off, as we know, omega 3s are in all grass fed meats.  Secondly, the body is capable of manufacturing it's own EPA and DHA from Alpha Linolenlic Acid, an omega 3 found in pretty much everything, including plants. That's how vegetarians are even able to survive and raise kids without massive defects.  However, we do need vitamins C, B3, B6, magnesium, zinc, and certain enzymes to process the ALA, so it's definitely easier to get them premade from animal sources, especially seafood.  But my point is that seafood is not absolutely necessary.  (I got the information about ALA from Natasha Campbell-McBride, in "Gut and Psychology Syndrome".)

I'm going to be taking anthropology classes soon, so I will be looking out for more evidence (or lack thereof) for this one.

In closing, perhaps M. Night Shyamalan deserves a little more credit than we gave him?  (Sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

[goodsamaritan]

Mermaids are Real!

http://mermaid-williambond.blogspot.com/

Check out this wonderful website showing real people, real cultures, real villages living like "Aquatic Apes".
Full breasted women doing most of the work because their more fatty bodies are able to withstand the cold temperatures in diving for food.

[Raw Kyle]

I enjoyed that video. That woman is very convincing and I can't think of any counters to her arguments myself.

[yon yonson]

that was a good video. i've got one bone to pick though. she said the presence of subcutaneous fat (fat under the skin) was a rare occurrence for mammals unless they are aquatic. but don't cows and pigs have that? there's a pretty good layer of fat on the outside of the meat i get. is it just that it's not actually attached to the skin that is different? im a little confused.

also, we're not very suited to warding off aquatic predators (crocs and sharks, etc) so that is a little perplexing. why the hell would we adapt to an environment where we are most vulnerable? at least on land you can run from a lion or climb a tree or try to kill it with a spear. in the water you're pretty helpless... also, why do we still have hair on our heads? the other aquatic mammals mentioned don't have any remaining spots of hair... i dont know. im skeptical i guess.

it is pretty curious though that we are so naked. it just seems so strange to me. especially if we supposedly lived in colder climates. perhaps clothing has already effected us evolutionarily speaking. no need for hair anymore? is there a generally agreed upon time period where we began to wear clothes? anyone know?

[PaleoPhil]

...also, we're not very suited to warding off aquatic predators (crocs and sharks, etc) so that is a little perplexing. why the hell would we adapt to an environment where we are most vulnerable? at least on land you can run from a lion or climb a tree or try to kill it with a spear. in the water you're pretty helpless...

That's a very good question and a fatal flaw in the aquatic ape hypothesis. You can learn about some of the other flaws here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis.

also, why do we still have hair on our heads? the other aquatic mammals mentioned don't have any remaining spots of hair... i dont know. im skeptical i guess.

Another excellent question, and you're wise to be skeptical. Question everything, especially when the one proposing the hypothesis spends more time name dropping and ridiculing alternative hypotheses than providing evidence for her own.

it is pretty curious though that we are so naked.

Yes, but there are other possible reasons. Think in terms of what we've learned about diet and the other morphological changes of h. sapiens and our hominid ancestors beyond just decreasing hair. Also ask yourself, if an ancestral aquatic ape is the origin of near-hairlessness, why have humans become increasingly hairless even over the last few thousand years?

is there a generally agreed upon time period where we began to wear clothes? anyone know?

Another excellent question. Notice how she also didn't even mention a time frame for when proto-humans began losing hair, or what species it started with? That information would seem to be crucial to her hypothesis.

If I missed the answers to any of these questions in the vid, let me know. I don't have time to address this topic properly right now, but hope to do so in the future.

[Raw Kyle]

I think humans, in particular some races, have evolved back since the aquatic times more hair. Head hair would be (and obviously was cause everyone has it) the first to come back to ward off heat stroke once you get out of the water.

[PaleoPhil]

I think humans, in particular some races, have evolved back since the aquatic times more hair.

When did this occur? Where is your evidence that hominids lost all their hair and then gained it back?

[Raw Kyle]

When did this occur? Where is your evidence that hominids lost all their hair and then gained it back?

It's an inference as to why humans have body hair, but not fur, and are not naked like other aquatic animals. In my mind the most logical explanation is that they were very close to or were completely hairless when aquatic, and after that time have gotten some hair. The fact that different races in different environments have different amounts of body hair supports this idea. The average African for example will have less body hair than the average Scandinavian, and if it's evolutionary than the selective pressure is obvious.

[JaredBond]

Sorry, I'm no expert, but I think this aquatic theory has enough merit to defend it.  I find it most plausible because it explains how we eased into bipedalism.

...also, we're not very suited to warding off aquatic predators (crocs and sharks, etc) so that is a little perplexing. why the hell would we adapt to an environment where we are most vulnerable? at least on land you can run from a lion or climb a tree or try to kill it with a spear. in the water you're pretty helpless...
That's a very good question and a fatal flaw in the aquatic ape hypothesis. You can learn about some of the other flaws here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis.

To be clear, the idea is not that humans were spending their lives in the sea or lakes and were just short of forming gills.  The idea is that humans spent a big enough chunk of their time in the water for it to affect their evolution- hence the term, as Elaine Morgan calls it, a "semi-aquatic phase".  That could mean a lot of wading in rivers, general swimming, or relying on a food source that required diving.  This could have happened at a time when humans, or perhaps a previous species of hominid now extinct, were not that widespread in the world.  Predators might have been as big a threat to them as fishing or clam diving is today- not that much.

also, why do we still have hair on our heads? the other aquatic mammals mentioned don't have any remaining spots of hair... i dont know. im skeptical i guess.
Another excellent question, and you're wise to be skeptical. Question everything, especially when the one proposing the hypothesis spends more time name dropping and ridiculing alternative hypotheses than providing evidence for her own.

Perhaps the hair on our heads is to protect us from the sun (-although, that doesn't explain why there's no hair left on our shoulders).  Also, it's also the only thing that sticks out of water when swimming.  The theory states that the loss of hair was partly to prevent mold and parasites from getting hold, so maybe the head didn't get wet as often, especially if there was mostly wading involved.

Also, I admit there wasn't a lot of evidence in the video, but Elaine Morgan was more speaking out against the general academic rejection of new ideas than promoting the theory.  I suppose she thought that if people really wanted to get into it, they could refer to at least 4 books that she's written on the subject over the past 30 years, plus other people who have argued it before her.  She acknowledges that it is still just a theory in the video, but her main contention is that people don't even consider it as an option worth looking into.

it is pretty curious though that we are so naked.
Yes, but there are other possible reasons. Think in terms of what we've learned about diet and the other morphological changes of h. sapiens and our hominid ancestors beyond just decreasing hair. Also ask yourself, if an ancestral aquatic ape is the origin of near-hairlessness, why have humans become increasingly hairless even over the last few thousand years?

Increasingly hairless?  Says who?

The amount of body hair may vary from race to race, depending on the climate.  We might be able to adapt slightly, but the basic structure of hair distribution is pretty much the same.  The hair that's on the head is quite different than the hair on the body.  The hypothesis is that this organization is left over from a much more distant ancestor than the last few thousand years.

is there a generally agreed upon time period where we began to wear clothes? anyone know?
Another excellent question. Notice how she also didn't even mention a time frame for when proto-humans began losing hair, or what species it started with? That information would seem to be crucial to her hypothesis.

An interesting question.  I would think that our hairlessness preceded any wearing of clothes, as wearing clothes probably developed because of our hairlessness, when we started moving into colder climates.

[PaleoPhil]

I know that the aquatic ape theory doesn't refer to an ape that lived completely submerged in the water. I watched the entire videow, and please note that I also referred to a Website that explores it in detail.

These are all fascinating speculations. If any of you come up with hard evidence to support the hypothesis, please do post it, as I would be interested in it. Until then I remain skeptical of it.

Also, before you decide that aquatic ape is the answer, shouldn't you at least explore the alternatives and post your thoughts on them? I am leading towards a couple of causative factors myself, but don't want to posit them until I have more evidence to support them.

[Raw Kyle]

All good points. I support the aquatic ape theory because, like the video says, there isn't much of an alternative. The Savannah thing, if her fossilized data are correct, is null, and no one has proposed anything different except aliens landing on earth or something like that.

[PaleoPhil]

All good points. I support the aquatic ape theory because, like the video says, there isn't much of an alternative.

Ah, but there are several alternative causes that have been proposed, some of which are briefly covered at the Wikipedia site I linked to. I invite you to check them out before accepting her hypothesis, especially given that she didn't even mention when her shore-ape supposedly evolved or what species it was. Doesn't that make you curious at all?

The Savannah thing, if her fossilized data are correct, is null, and no one has proposed anything different except aliens landing on earth or something like that.

If you look into it you'll see that there are far more sensible hypotheses than aliens. BTW, I also find the Savannah hypothesis to be lacking--there are other scientific hypotheses. I can't believe you guys haven't even touched on the ones that relate to our particular experience.

I strongly suspect that Morgan is on the wrong track and think the evidence actually is leading elsewhere, but I don't want to just force-feed you the answer like she attempted to do. I want to encourage people to think for themselves: question, investigate, analyze and question some more before you draw conclusions (besides, I'm still engaged in this pre-conclusion process myself).

[PaleoPhil]

Perhaps the hair on our heads is to protect us from the sun (-although, that doesn't explain why there's no hair left on our shoulders).  Also, it's also the only thing that sticks out of water when swimming.

The back, back of the head, and back of the shoulders stick up to the sun when swimming, whereas the top of the head and shoulders stick up when walking, running, standing or tree climbing. So if swimming is the cause of hair loss and the sun is the cause of the remaining hair on the scalp, we should expect as much hair on the top of the back as on the fore-scalp.

The theory states that the loss of hair was partly to prevent mold and parasites from getting hold, so maybe the head didn't get wet as often, especially if there was mostly wading involved.

I didn't notice her supporting the parasite theory in the vid and I thought that was one of the hypotheses she is arguing against rather than supporting? Lack of human immune defenses to waterborne parasites is one of the problems that has been raised against her hypothesis [see Wikipedia and Jablonski, Nina G. (2008). Skin a natural history. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 40–2. ISBN 0-520-25624-7].

...her main contention is that people don't even consider it as an option worth looking into.

I gave her as fair a hearing as I could, with the limited time I had available, by watching her video, reading this thread, and reviewing some of her written arguments. I've found them lacking so far.

Increasingly hairless?  Says who?

Thai scientists, among others. "This study shows that the prevalence of MPB [Male Pattern Baldness] in Asians is not as low as previously thought. The cause of this increasing prevalence is uncertain. There are no past studies in Thailand for comparison, however, it can be extrapolated that the socioeconomic environment and westernized diet [hint, hint] may contribute to this prevalence." http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13920017

Also, compare images of what people think that some of the most recent hominid species looked like with humans of today who in adulthood lose nearly all their body hair, including from their scalp, and this "baldness" is considered "normal" today, even though I have seen no evidence of it existing in pre-agrarian times. If humans stopped losing hair, when did this occur and what is your evidence?

Homo erectus
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/38/79538-004-F996FC7F.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YTbSavQelNs/SZxSBvVSLRI/AAAAAAAABa4/PL-th383-BY/s320/homo_erectus2.jpg

Homo heidelbergensis
http://themarcsteinershow.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/197.jpg
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/images/archaic.JPG

Eisenhower
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/do_history/decisions/images/eisenhower2.jpg

We might be able to adapt slightly, but the basic structure of hair distribution is pretty much the same.

Same compared to when?

I would think that our hairlessness preceded any wearing of clothes, as wearing clothes probably developed because of our hairlessness, when we started moving into colder climates.

Yes, supporters of all the scientific hypotheses accept that hominid body hair started decreasing before the wearing of clothes. The origin of clothes is apparently estimated at between around 50,000 and 550,000 years ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing#Origin_and_history_of_clothing]. So about when before this do you think that the shore-ape first lost much of its hair, what is your evidence of when this happened, what was the species, and when do you think the decrease in body hair (including scalp hair) stopped? These would seem to be important questions to at least make educated guesses about before we jump to accepting the aquatic ape hypothesis just because a person who has written many books and some other people she name-dropped support it.