I don't know if any one here has heard of this, in fact its new to me, but I am watching a documentary on animal planet and they brought up this theory.

Basically it suggests that part of human evolution occurred with humans being aquatic mammals and despite my initial reservations it has made some excellent points. I have few links with more information. I just want to know what other think of it. not every link is for the theory to be fair to both sides. don't feel like you have to read all of it to discuss I just offered some of what I've read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
http://www.aquaticape.org/
http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
http://aquatic-ape-theory.webs.com/

I'm going to lay down one rule for this discussion this is NOT a place to talk about whether or not evolution happened. Sorry I understand that comes up when discussing these things but that is NOT the topic here and I'd appreciate if we left that to other threads.

Last edited by PhenethyaSim : 28th May 2012 at 05:27 AM.

Hahaha, a documentary on mermaids?

Haha, ok.

Well, the theory has been around for quite some time - do you want to say what you find interesting about it? I'll have to go and look up where it originated but I can remember talking about it in the 1970s.

I suppose I think it gives interesting alternate explanations for adaptations humans have that differ from our closest living relatives. Like less hair on our bodies and how we don't conserve water as well. Among other things. I just find it interesting that it seems to hold less traction than other theories. I understand that it has less evidence but it seems from what I've read that from both sides that it may not have been given a fair chance.

So in other words....

Mermaids?

By the way, Phenthya. Oh, wait. That name is horribly long, I'll just call you Phenth from now on. Kay? Kay!

So, Phent. Notice that most of your posts are tacked as funny or disagreed. Evolution is a touchy subject in which you blatantly assume is true. You should consider posting your topic somewhere else. I can already tell your going to disagree with this post.

And, as to stay on topic so this isn't deleted by our ever so friendly mods...

I thought that theory was discovered quite a few decades ago.

I think the theory is an interesting version of human evolution, it does explain some of our quirks in relation to what is considered our closest relatives. However I'm personally not sold on it, like all theories I've so far looked at - I'll believe once its been proven.

I don't assume evolution is true in fact I think all the theories have holes. I just want this to be a discussion on whether or not this theory is equally as valid as more popular theories. Also the theory is older but it has never been disproved just dismissed.

And I don't disagree your post although I don't completely agree with you either.

And like I said the theory had nothing to do with mermaids. I was just brought up as an argument point in a discussion on that topic.

BTW If my name seems long it can be shortened to Phen respectfully.



I agree until one theory is proven I plan on holding off judgement. All evolution theories are missing crucial parts which science only explains hypothetically.

I'm curious: what do you think the standard theory of evolution is missing? Or are you referring not to the mechanism, but to the current conception of the evolutionary history of man?

I think its overall very sound but not so much that we shouldn't consider alternate explanations. as for what is missing not anything theory wise mostly just evidence not a lot of evidence but like I said there is a reason its not irrefutable.

Well, then you'll be waiting a long time because no scientific theory is ever "proven." There are just theories that have more support than others. Evolution in general is one that has more evidential support than most, particularly because the supporting evidence comes from so many very different scientific disciplines, from geology to chemistry to all the various branches of biology and even, in a sense, cosmology.

That said...I'd actually never heard of this theory! (Admittedly, human evolution in specific isn't really an interest of mine. I'm far more interested in creatures that existed from the dinosaur era and backwards from there. ) From just a cursory look, it appears to me that a lot of things, like bipedalism, that proponents say supports the "aquatic theory" also supports the "land theory," so it seems shaky to me, but I'll do some further reading because the notion, at least, is interesting. (Perhaps in the same way that I find "theories" about alien astronauts "interesting," but still...)

Of course, ultimately, we all came from the water, from ancestral amphibious creatures that eventually spawned reptiles that eventually spawned both birds and mammals. So, in that sense, we ARE aquatic, as are ALL land-based creatures are. We all just carry the ocean in our bodily fluids instead of actually living in the ocean. But I'm not sold on the notion of actual aquatic mammals in our direct "family tree," as it were.

...That said, I wouldn't MIND being more closely related to whales than to apes. Whales are smarter, not into killing each other for fun (Chimps are CREEPY!), and they don't stink as much.

Seriously iclad, you should get an award for reliably having the longest posts

Anyway, I've never heard of this theory but it does make a bit of sense. However, like any theory, it does have it's holes.

if disagrees matter so much to you, why are you posting in the debate room? seems youve racked up quite a bit...are you really one to talk about how many she gets?

since when is evolution a "touchy subject" to anyone who's graduated high school? and isnt the debate room the place for touchy subjects? gay marriage, religion, murder cases, deceased husband sperm, evolution (which HAS been discussed here before, you may want to take a few minutes to travel back a few pages and read it)...
since the topic is this particular theory of evolution, it doesnt make sense to debate evolution itself. i dont see the OPs request as being unreasonable.

she has just as much right to post here as anyone, and seeings how she's not off topic and you're not a mod... .... ....


@OP: this is actually the first ive heard of this. i think im going to stick with the monkey theory, though. methinks humans behave much more akin to monkies than whales and the like.

The aquatic ape theory is roundly dismissed by evolutionary biologists. It's not even that interesting to debate, because the evidence for it amounts to a "just so story" with no hard evidence backing it up.

The aquatic elephant theory, though, has heaps of evidence behind it, including the fact that male elephants have internal testicles - something only seen in marine mammals.

I think, not so much an aquatic ape in human pre-evolution, but its entirely possible that a pre-evolutionary state of humans branched off, and adapted to wetter climates, but died out at some point.

SuicidiaParasidia: thank you and personal the monkey theory is so much more sound so I understand why it has more support infact I don't disagree with it I just find this one interesting.


Well thats my point It hasn't been taken seriously enough to get the funding it would take to really look into the theory. as far as I can tell from reading the theory was scoffed at and never stood a fair chance. So even if its not true its not in the spirit of science not at least try to prove it. at least not the way I was taught science.

I think if there was enough supporting evidence (that didn't also support -- sometimes more firmly -- the more "mainstream" idea), then there would be funding to look into it. The unfortunate reality is that science isn't as "equal opportunity" as one might think and that there's not enough money to go around. What is available tends to get spent more on stuff that will have practical, useable applications, like studies that can have medical applications, for instance. "Proving" or "disproving" that humans might have a semi-aquatic ancestor in our "family tree" is probably not high on the priority list, I'm afraid. (Because in the grand scheme of things...Who really cares? I mean, outside of the "scientific curiosity"/"understanding who we are" sense. I mean in the sense that, "How would that knowledge affect anything, practically speaking?")

For this reason, creationist "theories" might gain more acceptance if there was any kind of real evidence to back it up that wasn't A) a blatant misunderstanding/misapplication of real science easily dismantled by people who actually know what they're talking about or B) didn't actually better support the evolutionary model. But, there isn't...so it doesn't. I'm guessing the same thing happened to the "aquatic ape" theory.

Prior plausibility is an essential part of planning research. If something is implausible on the weight of what evidence we already have then we risk doing what doctor Harriet Hall calls "Toothfairy science."



I'm not sure that the "aquatic ape" hypothesis even rises to the scientific definition of a "theory", because a theory has not only a hypothesis, but also at least preliminary evidence establishing plausibility.

Very disappointing. Because I expected MER-APES.





Anyway, this should be tagged as a hypothesis and not a scientific theory. For example, gravity is a scientific theory and then there is my pastor's theory of how the Bible is the truth because the word BIBlE put over water and viewing the reflection still reads BIBlE. So yeah, hypothesis. Actually, I think Westenhöfer's statement in his book translates to 'it would be kinda fun to see if and how water life could have played an important role in our ancestors becoming us.'

There are many things in the millions of years of evolution ( that also have been formed into similar questions ) that had an effect on our ancestors. But to put so much importance on a stage that can't be tested and that wouldn't have lasted very long on in the larger picture is... what's another word for cheeky and arrogant? Is Elaine Morgan just having fun with it, or does she really want to make science look stupid for some reason?

Anyway, the actual claims on how being part of an 'aquatic environment' ( the hypothesis does not mean living underwater, it means a lifestyle of wading, swimming, and diving for food ) would have happened anyway because they did.

Bipedal Form - Are you kidding me? We developed longer legs so that we could swim better? So, where in this world are all the other swimming apes?

Descended Larynx - I'm more disposed to believe that this development was more along the way for vocalization becoming speech.

Encephalization - Increase in brain size was already happening in earlier ancestors. There is no reason to point at 'aquatic stage' and scream eureka.

We don't have body hair because, hey, aquatic environment - No.

Please don't tell me that this theory is about how we were somewhat like fish>apes>humans.

Wasn't Adam the first human created? Not evolution-ized?

Well, this wasn't set up to be a creation vs. evolution thread, so... And while the evolutionary model, when grossly and (deliberately) misleadingly oversimplified as those who espouse creationism tend to do, does suggest a fish>apes>humans progression over millions of years, that's not what the "theory" in question here is about. It's about humans theoretically having a semi-aquatic ape in the human family tree, one that waded/swam a lot, diving for food, etc.

Although I agree with Shoosh. I want mer-apes!

The movie " The Creature From The Black Lagoon " was based on this theory.
Other than a good idea for a movie, This theory is useless.