Apes walk bipedally only if they have a particular reason to do so; humans do it because we have lost the ability to go quadrupedally - that is a qualitative difference.
White fat is not much good for supplying instant heat and energy. Aquatic ape hypothesis is and was already a section in the page for "Objections to AAH", which I think is the appropriate place for most of your concerns.
But if it makes sense, why is it dismissed by modern physical anthropologists? Humans fish a bit.
Can you say whether the German article was independently-posted? A post from January dates to the first few weeks of my regular blogging. While I think there is a fair summary here, at least of some the main themes of AAT, it seems rather odd to me that it should be interspersed with arguments for non-aquatic evolution.
Can anyone provide a source so it can be added?
Underlying all of this is the problem of conceptual biasan intractable problem one encounters when dealing with scientists, not unlike the problem which anthropologists encounter with ethnocentrism among their informants. And there is also the issue that under many forms of this hypothesis humans lived in both aquatic and marine environments as stated above.
It raises interesting questions and it is simple 1: Our brain biochemistry is also revealing. Where have they been proven incorrect? I actually like the idea and think it has merit -- however it does have an ambiguous title as is.
Attenborough says "Then, in the early 90s, the consensus has begun to fall apart. One, the proboscis monkey, lives in the mangrove swamps of Borneo. You are right that some external links got deleted apparently by mistake by another contributor.
It took me from one end of the emotional pendulum "This all makes so much sense! As our earliest ancestors spent longer and longer periods of time wading upright, it became beneficial to evolve specialized anatomy for two-legged walking.
Supporters of the hypothesis claim that this lukewarm reception resulted from the fact that Elaine Morgan was not a member of the palaeoanthropological establishment.
The other difference is that in our case the subcutaneous fat is bonded to the skin.A scientific examination of the aquatic ape theory (AAT) and that a transition from ape to hominid in a non-aquatic environment cannot.
The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis How to misquote Darwin Other AAT/H theorists Alister Hardy's original "Aquatic ape theory".
Watch video · Elaine Morgan was a tenacious proponent of a theory that is not widely accepted. The aquatic ape hypothesis lays out the idea that humans evolved from primate ancestors who dwelt in watery habitats. Hear her spirited defense of the idea -- and her theory on why science doesn't take it seriously.
NOTE: Statements in this talk have. Aquatic Ape Theory or Semi-Aquatic Human Ancestor Theory? What is it? Controversy Surrounding A Name. The ‘Aquatic Ape Theory’ (AAT) aka ‘Aquatic Ape Hypothesis’ (AAH) has given rise to a great deal of controversy in recent decades, and not only among opponents of the theory.
Perhaps it's because the name implies that an early ape-like. The aquatic ape hypothesis (or a common misnomer: aquatic ape theory) is the proposal that wading, swimming and diving for food had a large evolutionary effect on the ancestors of humans and is in part responsible for the split between the common ancestors of humans and other great apes.
A New Aquatic Ape Theory. A gorilla in the Congo wading in a swamp The hypothesis was met with so much criticism that it’s not even mentioned in human evolution textbooks.
But that doesn’t. So, if the Aquatic Ape theory/hypothesis should be handled as a religion, we can concentrate on the belief and the believers, but if it should be handled as scientific theory, some context about its current standings and reputation in science is needed.Download