TED Talk: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from Aquatic Apes.(ted.com)
ted.com
TED Talk: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from Aquatic Apes.
http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes.html
25 comments
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."
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.
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.
but were likely used to wading in shallow pools and similar bodies of water
That's not disputed. There's food in them shallow pools and there's plentiful evidence of people eating tons of shellfish etc, all around the world. This is also indisputably NOT an aquatic ape. The swimming macaques in the Ganges delta aren't aquatic apes. They are land monkeys who can and do swim and search for food under water. Tigers swim, they are not aquatic cats. Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals.
The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection
Really? Fur protects us from cold and venom but water replaces that protection? There's no other reason to lose the fur? Like parasites, and a tropical climate, and animal skins a.k.a. clothing? Oh wait, you say that clothing came after we lost the protection of water, because the world ran out of water?
Yes next time I jump in the pool and feel the cold water, I'll think boy I sure with I was fury like an otter.
That's not disputed. There's food in them shallow pools and there's plentiful evidence of people eating tons of shellfish etc, all around the world. This is also indisputably NOT an aquatic ape. The swimming macaques in the Ganges delta aren't aquatic apes. They are land monkeys who can and do swim and search for food under water. Tigers swim, they are not aquatic cats. Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals.
The reason is almost certainly that their environment has somehow provided them with equivalent protection
Really? Fur protects us from cold and venom but water replaces that protection? There's no other reason to lose the fur? Like parasites, and a tropical climate, and animal skins a.k.a. clothing? Oh wait, you say that clothing came after we lost the protection of water, because the world ran out of water?
Yes next time I jump in the pool and feel the cold water, I'll think boy I sure with I was fury like an otter.
Elephants can swim for miles, and lots and lots of other land animals can and do swim a lot. But that still leaves them far, far short of being aquatic animals.
True. This is why that unfortunate moniker "aquatic" is misleading.
And on your second point: warm water protects from cold, and even from venom if local venomous animals can't swim. And there is plenty of naturally warm water around. Regarding the other reasons to lose fur, I'm still waiting to see any other animal which has lost its fur for any of the reasons above. And yes, the world ran out of water; specifically, the immediate habitat of our ancestors at one point ran out of warm water.
You have to keep in mind that it has been scientifically proven that the modern humans had a few very close calls in their history, and that we are descended from a small group that at one point had no more than about 1000 individuals, who probably inhabited a small area. So all the effects could have easily be local to produce the modern traits.
True. This is why that unfortunate moniker "aquatic" is misleading.
And on your second point: warm water protects from cold, and even from venom if local venomous animals can't swim. And there is plenty of naturally warm water around. Regarding the other reasons to lose fur, I'm still waiting to see any other animal which has lost its fur for any of the reasons above. And yes, the world ran out of water; specifically, the immediate habitat of our ancestors at one point ran out of warm water.
You have to keep in mind that it has been scientifically proven that the modern humans had a few very close calls in their history, and that we are descended from a small group that at one point had no more than about 1000 individuals, who probably inhabited a small area. So all the effects could have easily be local to produce the modern traits.
First of all, this theory is not stupid.
Humans belong to a small number of animal groups that display vocal learning.
Vocal Learning Animals have a special “language” gene ( FoxP2 ), that gives them the ability to learn and imitate sounds they hear.
Among mammals only Dolphins, Whales, Seals, Elephants and Humans have FoxP2 gene. All of them are aquatic animals or have aquatic ancestors.
Humans belong to a small number of animal groups that display vocal learning.
Vocal Learning Animals have a special “language” gene ( FoxP2 ), that gives them the ability to learn and imitate sounds they hear.
Among mammals only Dolphins, Whales, Seals, Elephants and Humans have FoxP2 gene. All of them are aquatic animals or have aquatic ancestors.
I think the notion of a (single) gene giving the ability to learn is already flawed.
People with mutation in this single gene lose the ability for vocal learning and speech. How do you explain that?
I would guess it is responsible for one crucial part for the "speech apparatus", but that doesn't make it the speed apparatus. A car without the ignition loses the ability to drive, yet the ignition hardly seems the most important part in the car.
I feel the same uneasyness when I hear "hormone X is the cause of ability Y" - sure, maybe if Hormone X is missing, ability Y is missing. But Hormone X does not manufacture Y, it is just a messenger that makes something else produce Y. Likewise I suspect speech is possible because of the combined effects of several genes. If one is missing, maybe the system fails - but perhaps it could be replaced with something else, given time.
Sorry, it is late, I feel unable to express myself more clearly atm.
I feel the same uneasyness when I hear "hormone X is the cause of ability Y" - sure, maybe if Hormone X is missing, ability Y is missing. But Hormone X does not manufacture Y, it is just a messenger that makes something else produce Y. Likewise I suspect speech is possible because of the combined effects of several genes. If one is missing, maybe the system fails - but perhaps it could be replaced with something else, given time.
Sorry, it is late, I feel unable to express myself more clearly atm.
An ignition indicates that the car has an internal combustion engine.
The speech-enabling gene FOXP2 indicates that there are brain circuits that make vocal learning possible.
The question is why this gene is present in aquatic mammals and is absent in terrestrial apes
The speech-enabling gene FOXP2 indicates that there are brain circuits that make vocal learning possible.
The question is why this gene is present in aquatic mammals and is absent in terrestrial apes
"The speech-enabling gene FOXP2 indicates that there are brain circuits that make vocal learning possible."
That's kind of what I meant: surely that speech gene is not a gene that describes a whole brain?
"The question is why this gene is present in aquatic mammals and is absent in terrestrial apes"
Doesn't that refute the "speech gene" theory? Surely some terrestrial apes also communicate by "speech"?
I don't know enough about genetics to confidently discuss this more. Presumably if several species share a gene, they are likely to have a common ancestor?
That's kind of what I meant: surely that speech gene is not a gene that describes a whole brain?
"The question is why this gene is present in aquatic mammals and is absent in terrestrial apes"
Doesn't that refute the "speech gene" theory? Surely some terrestrial apes also communicate by "speech"?
I don't know enough about genetics to confidently discuss this more. Presumably if several species share a gene, they are likely to have a common ancestor?
"Vocal learning, the substrate of human language, is a very rare trait. It is known to be present in only 6 groups of animals: 3 groups of birds (parrots, songbirds, and hummingbirds) and 3 groups of mammals (bats, cetaceans[whales/dolphins], and humans).
All other groups of animals are thought to produce genetically innate vocalizations.
To understand this concept, it is important to distinguish vocal learning from auditory learning. Auditory learning is the ability to make sound associations, such as a dog learning how to respond to the sound "sit". All vertebrates have auditory learning.
Vocal learning is the ability to imitate sounds that you hear, such as a human or a parrot imitating the sound "sit". Currently only vocal learners have been found to have forebrain regions dedicated to vocal learning and production of these learned vocalizations. Vocal non-learners only have been found to have non-forebrain vocal regions responsible for the production of innate vocalizations." http://www.jarvislab.net/Evolution.html
All other groups of animals are thought to produce genetically innate vocalizations.
To understand this concept, it is important to distinguish vocal learning from auditory learning. Auditory learning is the ability to make sound associations, such as a dog learning how to respond to the sound "sit". All vertebrates have auditory learning.
Vocal learning is the ability to imitate sounds that you hear, such as a human or a parrot imitating the sound "sit". Currently only vocal learners have been found to have forebrain regions dedicated to vocal learning and production of these learned vocalizations. Vocal non-learners only have been found to have non-forebrain vocal regions responsible for the production of innate vocalizations." http://www.jarvislab.net/Evolution.html
Elephants and Humans aren't aquatic.
The ancestor of the elephants was aquatic and had a similar lifestyle to a hippopotamus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Evolution
It should be noted that the Aquatic Ape theory is controversial at best.
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.
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.
Did you watch the talk? That was clear from the theme.
I'm in no position to judge the evidence, but I'm glad to see that Elaine Morgan is still at it.
As has been nearly every major scientific discovery since they very dawn of science itself.
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/
Just like any other theory which is trying to explain why have humans evolved so differently than just about any other mammal species.
[deleted]
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.
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.
If there is is evidence it will be accepted for review, if not it will be rejected..... simple.
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.