|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 11, 2013 6:36:20 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 12, 2013 9:10:16 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 13, 2013 7:03:44 GMT 10
The postulation of an aquatic mode of life during an early stage of human evolution is a tenable hypothesis, for which further inquiry may produce additional supporting evidence.Prof. Max Westenhöfer, 1942
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 14, 2013 6:50:25 GMT 10
My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch.Sir Alister Hardy, FRSNew Scientist, 17 March 1960
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 15, 2013 6:26:41 GMT 10
From the “Cradle of Civilization”:
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 16, 2013 9:00:21 GMT 10
I recently read some remarkably specious, disingenuous criticisms of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. In another such criticism: The point is that it DOES come naturally, as the self-same critic shortly goes on to deprecate.
Ibid.:
Likely or not, we HAVE. Humans tend to congregate around coastlines, riverbanks and estuaries, largely eschewing the dry inland plains.
Ibid:
Here we need to put the infant swimming response into context. Most animals are mobile from birth, whereas humans have a uniquely long period of nurturing (at first showing only primitive responses, such as suckling). However, humans can swim from birth, when babies are otherwise utterly dependent, even unable to lift their heads, let alone crawl. Quibbling about new born babies’ ability to survive experiences like being dropped in water, but then requiring assistance to lift their nostrils above the surface, recalls the joke about the poker playing dog whose owner reckons he’s no good because he wags his tail when he gets a good hand.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 17, 2013 7:18:17 GMT 10
An aquatic Ape is a likely ancestor of humans in terms of primate behaviour, marine ecosystems and geophysical timingProf. Derek EllisDept. of Biology, University of Victoria, Canada
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 18, 2013 7:40:14 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 19, 2013 6:36:11 GMT 10
As for the AAH being less parsimonious than the savanna ape alternative, this depends on a mistaken understanding of the hypothesis, with our having had to adapt from an extreme terrestrial environment to an extreme aquatic environment and then back again. However, all that the AAH involves is our adaption to enable a wide range of generalist options, including exploiting littoral and riparian niches, much as humans do to this day (as seen by examples cited earlier in the thread). This point, with regard to our evolved psychology (and applicable to our other evolved features), was clearly stated by Smithee when addressing “Evolutionary Psychology” (with the uppercase E & P version, involving extensive or even massive, hard-wired mind modulation and depending on the Savanna Ape Hypothesis): Evolutionary Psychology is a self-bestowed title co-opted to give this pseudoscience an illusion of scientific respectability. Let us be clear. Evolutionary Psychology is not THE evolutionary account of our psychology. It is just one evolutionary account of it and a very odd one at that. It is hard to imagine how an evolutionary theory of human psychology could be more inconsistent with our present state. Incredibly Evolutionary Psychologists seek to explain how we evolved as the most successful and LEAST specialised ape by somehow acquiring more specialised and hardwired behavioural adaptations or rather instincts than any other animal. A more likely evolutionary scenario and one more in line with the genuine science on which Evolutionary Psychology clumsily presumes to impinge is that we evolved powerful general cognitive capabilities and capacities for learning which we each flexibly and organically use as individuals to lay down our own neuro-pathways. This has enabled us to exploit a vast diversity of ecological niches. Many more than has any other primate. We are omnivorous extreme generalists and we did not evolve that way by painting ourselves into a restrictive ecological corner with more and more specialised but awkwardly cobbled together behavioural adaptations which Evolutionary Psychologists postulate as either massively or relatively many mind modules. Whatever mind modules are and how they might be consistent with our huge degree of neuro-plasticity is another matter. Another problem for Evolutionary Psychologists is that in the decades since they morphed from Sociobiology each innate behaviour they postulate has failed to withstand critical scrutiny. As a theory to account for our peculiar psychology Evolutionary Psychology is just plain bizarre and wrong-headed. Like Wolfgang Pauli famously said of a theory which was not even in the scientific ballpark. "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 20, 2013 7:21:05 GMT 10
The original, larger image may be viewed at upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Human_Aquatic_Adaptations.png
Note: These adaptations apply to modern humans: There is no need to hypothesize a MORE aquatically adapted predecessor (many modern humans still opt for varying degrees of littoral or riparian lifestyles, as seen by examples cited earlier in the thread). The point is, we did not necessarily evolve FROM an aquatic ape but rather we BECAME one (although "aquatic" is perhaps too strong a term, which was not originally applied to the hypothesis, but the term has stuck — I suspect less because of intended meaning than the lure of alliteration in saying "Aquatic Ape" — it's catchier than saying "Waterside Ape" or "Littoral Ape" — and because "straw-man" type detractors of the hypothesis especially like the term "Aquatic Ape," finding it lends itself to an easier but bogus target).
Our predecessors evolved and passed on more and more of the adaptions we see today, but we only need to observe modern humans to say that these are aspects of our current state of evolution.
|
|