Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 18, 2025, 6:07 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Back, then back again.
#6
RE: Back, then back again.
(January 7, 2009 at 8:02 pm)DD_8630 Wrote: The 'Aquatic Ape' hypothesis states that our ancestors returned to the oceans at some point. Evidence for this includes the way our hair grows on our bodies.

Of course, our ancestors didn't evolve to be as aquatic as our cetacean cousins, but still :p.

The Aquatic Ape theory (as PJ Myers of the Pharyngula blog says it doesn't actually deserve being called a "theory") is pretty much rubbish and you can read more here: Aquatic Ape: Sink Or Swim

Myers sums it up as follows:

Quote:This "theory" (really, it doesn't deserve the promotion) is often taken as quite reasonable at first glance — hey, whales have reduced body hair and are aquatic, humans have reduced body hair so maybe they also went through an aquatic stage in their evolution — but once you dig just a tiny bit deeper, the inconsistencies within the hypothesis and the contradictions with reality loom larger and larger, and you really should realize that it's utter nonsense. But weirdly, there are a number of people who have gotten quite obsessed with the idea and who have written reams of papers to rationalize the baloney. Back in the 20th century wrangles over the Aquatic Ape nonsense would spontaneously emerge on usenet all the time (here's one example) because its proponents had to be completely refractory to contradicting evidence. Good times.

One interesting twist to it all is that it's an odd variant of denialism. These people aren't rejecting an established scientific conclusion, such as that HIV causes AIDS or that human activities contribute to global warming — they are pushing beyond reason for a conclusion that science denies. I suppose you could say they're denying the evidence that shoots down their favored beliefs, but at least they actually have a positive (but bogus!) hypothesis that they aren't afraid to recite at you, which puts them several notches above the Intelligent Design creationists.

Anyway, Moore has a tremendous amount of useful information rebutting the Aquatic Ape Speculation — it's well worth a browse, and also amusing to read some of the crackpot defenses (one of my favorites is the claim that Neandertals had large noses that they used as snorkels). And I'm not just saying that because he was nice enough to stop by Morris!

Kyu
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Back, then back again. - by Darwinian - December 30, 2008 at 6:34 am
RE: Back, then back again. - by leo-rcc - December 30, 2008 at 6:36 am
RE: Back, then back again. - by DD_8630 - January 7, 2009 at 8:02 pm
RE: Back, then back again. - by Kyuuketsuki - January 8, 2009 at 6:59 am
RE: Back, then back again. - by lukec - January 7, 2009 at 8:32 pm
RE: Back, then back again. - by Demonaura - January 8, 2009 at 3:56 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Earth must be older than 7000 years, then! pocaracas 5 3132 April 25, 2013 at 7:18 pm
Last Post: JesusHChrist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)