5 ms·

TED Talk: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from Aquatic Apes.

14 points by ericb 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
It should be noted that the Aquatic Ape theory is controversial at best.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- ericb 17y ago
  Did you watch the talk? That was clear from the theme.
  - michael_dorfman 17y ago
    I'm in no position to judge the evidence, but I'm glad to see that Elaine Morgan is still at it.
- encoderer 17y ago
  As has been nearly every major scientific discovery since they very dawn of science itself.
  - fhars 17y ago
    Actually, within the scientific community the aquatic ape theory is about as controversial as intelligent design. It never had any supporting evidence. See http://www.aquaticape.org/ http://www.aquaticape.org/
    - BerislavLopac 17y ago
      Just like any other theory which is trying to explain why have humans evolved so differently than just about any other mammal species.
- marze 17y ago
  In the late 1600s, Nicolaus Steno published his book laying down the foundations of the science of Geology. What prompted the work was the fact people found sea shells and fossil shark teeth on mountains and in mines and embedded in rock everywhere. The theory at the time was that the shells just grew in the rock, basically 'magically'. Steno's theory that the shells were deposited in sedimentary layers in water that later turned to rock and were uplifted took about 120 years to be accepted. Science has proven slow to accept what in retrospect appears completely obvious. 120 years to decide shells embedded in rock identical to living shells didn't just 'grow' there. Fossil evidence for the aquatic ape theory, if it exists at all, would be found about 300 feet below sea level (the sea is higher now). The ability of humans to dive deeply in the ocean and swim so well suggests it was important for survival at some point in the past. And it doesn't seem unreasonable that early humans lived along the coasts and ate fish and other sea life. I'm not sure why this idea is so controversial, really.
biohacker42 17y ago
Can I flag this for being stupid? OK I am instead going to use it as a teaching moment. Remember hacker news disease? The symptom of having a strong opinion on topics you really shouldn't be having an opinion on? OK so if you find yourself even remotely agreeing with the Aquatic Ape theory, do yourself a favor and research the counter evidence, it's easy to find and obvious enough to convince yourself. It's just a shame that non-stupid ideas have to share TED with this. This and that rambling talk about the dangers of robots (OMG roombas!) are so far the worst things I've seen at TED. Lets just hope that TED doesn't devolve from here.
- ericb 17y ago
  I have no opinion in particular about this idea, but if this was a teaching moment, seems like a good time to include a link to your easy-to-find counter evidence, rather than name-calling the theory "stupid."
  - biohacker42 17y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=735181 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=735181
    - BerislavLopac 17y ago
      That site proves nothing. It just counteracts AAT "claims" with "facts" not backed with too much hard evidence. The problem with the original AAT is that it piles together everything and the kitchen sink if there might be drawn a most remote connection between it and water. It's very easy to dismiss the theory as it was set -- but some individual aspects of it have a lot of merit, and even more mainstream anthropologists have started to seriously consider a possibility of an "aquatic" phase in human evolution. Our ancestors were probably never fully "aquatic", but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water. There is one thing we can be pretty certain when it comes to human evolution: at one point in time, our ancestors had no need for the natural protecting covering on their bodies (fur, which is used as protection from all kinds of hazards, including heat, cold, venom etc), so they lost it. The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection, and once they lost that protection they had to substitute it with some other covering, and this is how clothing was invented. And the only natural protection we know of are water and earth. Ponder on that next time you'll be enjoying a dip in the pool.
sampladoc 17y ago
If there is is evidence it will be accepted for review, if not it will be rejected..... simple.
quisxt 17y ago
This isn't particularly new -- the theory has been around for more than 60 years. Anthropologists certainly are aware of the theory. It comes up all the time in student papers and discussions. My first encounter with it was when I was a grad student TAing Anthro 1. There does not seem to be any evidence in the fossil record that supports the theory.

14 points by ericb 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

It should be noted that the Aquatic Ape theory is controversial at best.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ericb 17y ago
Did you watch the talk? That was clear from the theme.
- michael_dorfman 17y ago
  I'm in no position to judge the evidence, but I'm glad to see that Elaine Morgan is still at it.
encoderer 17y ago
As has been nearly every major scientific discovery since they very dawn of science itself.
- fhars 17y ago
  Actually, within the scientific community the aquatic ape theory is about as controversial as intelligent design. It never had any supporting evidence. See http://www.aquaticape.org/ http://www.aquaticape.org/
  - BerislavLopac 17y ago
    Just like any other theory which is trying to explain why have humans evolved so differently than just about any other mammal species.
marze 17y ago
In the late 1600s, Nicolaus Steno published his book laying down the foundations of the science of Geology. What prompted the work was the fact people found sea shells and fossil shark teeth on mountains and in mines and embedded in rock everywhere. The theory at the time was that the shells just grew in the rock, basically 'magically'. Steno's theory that the shells were deposited in sedimentary layers in water that later turned to rock and were uplifted took about 120 years to be accepted. Science has proven slow to accept what in retrospect appears completely obvious. 120 years to decide shells embedded in rock identical to living shells didn't just 'grow' there. Fossil evidence for the aquatic ape theory, if it exists at all, would be found about 300 feet below sea level (the sea is higher now). The ability of humans to dive deeply in the ocean and swim so well suggests it was important for survival at some point in the past. And it doesn't seem unreasonable that early humans lived along the coasts and ate fish and other sea life. I'm not sure why this idea is so controversial, really.

biohacker42 17y ago

Can I flag this for being stupid? OK I am instead going to use it as a teaching moment. Remember hacker news disease? The symptom of having a strong opinion on topics you really shouldn't be having an opinion on? OK so if you find yourself even remotely agreeing with the Aquatic Ape theory, do yourself a favor and research the counter evidence, it's easy to find and obvious enough to convince yourself. It's just a shame that non-stupid ideas have to share TED with this. This and that rambling talk about the dangers of robots (OMG roombas!) are so far the worst things I've seen at TED. Lets just hope that TED doesn't devolve from here.

ericb 17y ago
I have no opinion in particular about this idea, but if this was a teaching moment, seems like a good time to include a link to your easy-to-find counter evidence, rather than name-calling the theory "stupid."
- biohacker42 17y ago
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=735181 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=735181
  - BerislavLopac 17y ago
    That site proves nothing. It just counteracts AAT "claims" with "facts" not backed with too much hard evidence. The problem with the original AAT is that it piles together everything and the kitchen sink if there might be drawn a most remote connection between it and water. It's very easy to dismiss the theory as it was set -- but some individual aspects of it have a lot of merit, and even more mainstream anthropologists have started to seriously consider a possibility of an "aquatic" phase in human evolution. Our ancestors were probably never fully "aquatic", but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water. There is one thing we can be pretty certain when it comes to human evolution: at one point in time, our ancestors had no need for the natural protecting covering on their bodies (fur, which is used as protection from all kinds of hazards, including heat, cold, venom etc), so they lost it. The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection, and once they lost that protection they had to substitute it with some other covering, and this is how clothing was invented. And the only natural protection we know of are water and earth. Ponder on that next time you'll be enjoying a dip in the pool.

sampladoc 17y ago

If there is is evidence it will be accepted for review, if not it will be rejected..... simple.

quisxt 17y ago

This isn't particularly new -- the theory has been around for more than 60 years. Anthropologists certainly are aware of the theory. It comes up all the time in student papers and discussions. My first encounter with it was when I was a grad student TAing Anthro 1. There does not seem to be any evidence in the fossil record that supports the theory.