3 ms·
I think the "aquatic ape hypothesis" as originally proposed is a lot weaker than people in this thread seem to think. It wasn't a proposal that humans lived in
by nl 3y ago
I think the "aquatic ape hypothesis" as originally proposed is a lot weaker than people in this thread seem to think. It wasn't a proposal that humans lived in the water, merely that:
> 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.[1]
So, wading hunter-gatherers.
In this - as an primarily land based creature - wading seems reasonably effective.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
- jacquesm 3y agoYes, and that's exactly what makes the hypothesis so unlikely, all this immense adaptation for something that seems to come more-or-less for free with a standard mammalian body plan. The timescales we're talking about for such invasive changes would be far longer than available for the whole of the aquatic ape hypothesis, but is recent enough that there should be plenty of fossil evidence. I just don't buy it, but if ever someone digs up fossil proof I'll be happy to eat a hat or two. It is roughly in line for me with 'Hollow Earth' and 'Water as a fuel'. It smacks of backwards reasoning and wishful thinking. But: it's harmless and whoever wants to believe in it is obviously welcome to do so.