Bronze-level articleAquatic ape hypothesis

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Science
Icon test c.png
Major disciplines
More articles
Philosophy of science

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. The hypothesis is in contradiction to the more established hypothesis that the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness for hominids was the savannas of the Rift Valley and the more recent hypotheses that the environment was forests or even that it rapidly fluctuated.

Contents

[edit] History

The hypothesis that the morphological divergence of hominids was dictated by an aquatic environment was first formulated in 1923 by the German physician Max Westenhfer and British marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy. Hardy was inspired after returning from an Antarctic expedition where he noticed the subcutaneous blubber fat layers of whales and seals and saw parallels to humans. He was also impressed by the human "exceptional ability" to swim. Fearing it would jeopardize his scientific career, Hardy did not publish his ideas until 1960.

Elaine Morgan took up the fight in 1972 when she discussed the aquatic ape hypothesis in her book The Descent of Woman. Morgan has been the primary proponent of the hypothesis, and culminated her argument in 1997 with the publication of The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. [1]

[edit] Theory

The major divergence between the great apes and hominids can be placed somewhere between 5-7 mya based on the fossil record. During this time significant differences in anatomy developed including:

  • Bipedalism,[2] which the theory claims was assisted by the supporting effects of water.
  • Hairless skin,[3] with the exception of the head which still needed to be shielded from the sun. Meanwhile primates such as baboons and vervet monkeys which live on the savannah have neither lost their hair nor developed an upright posture.
  • Increased subcutaneous fat[4]
  • Greatly expanded brain size, which was promoted by the protein-rich fish diet.
  • A hooded nose, which prevents water from entering the nostrils.[5]
  • Greasy skin with an abundance of sebaceous glands, which can be interpreted as a waterproofing device.[6]
  • Expressive faces, communicating through body language is difficult when wading in deep water or swimming but communicating through facial expression is still possible. [7]

Elaine Morgan, the primary proponent of this hypothesis, claims that these traits are common in aquatic mammals. She claims that these demonstrate convergent evolution of mammals living in an aquatic environment. The aquatic stage would have been about 5 mya until about 2.5 mya when the grassland expansion begun.

Beyond anatomical changes there are several interesting instinctual and physiological adaptations; the human dive reflex being the most impressive. When humans enter water a series of physiological changes take place similar to those experienced by other semi-aquatic mammals that allow for much deeper and longer dives. This can also be seen with babies' natural instinct to hold their breath when immersed in water. Proponents of the Aquatic Ape Theory posit that in a savannah environment these attributes would seem to hold no adaptive power, but in a littoral setting they may be vital.

[edit] Objections to the theory

Ma-ma--ma-ma

There are several problems with this idea. The first is that convergent evolution predicts adaptations serving similar function, not necessarily similar structure. A platypus bill looks like a duck bill because it solves the precise same problem (sucking bugs out of mud); but the wings of a bat, a bird, and a bumblebee are products of convergent evolution in solving the problem of flight, but are structurally very different. Morgan's convergent evolution adaptations focus on structure.

The second problem is that evidence provided for the AAH is equally well accounted for by savannah-based adaptations without needing to posit an aquatic phase of human development.

  • Loss of body hair: lower parasite load (early hominids appear to have been disgusting skanks) and maintenance through sexual selection. Furthermore, many aquatic mammals have actually kept their body hair.[8] Several other savannah species have also lost much of their hair including elephants, rhinoceroses, and naked mole rats. Although it is interesting to note that both elephants [9] and rhinoceroses [10] are theorised to have evolved from aquatic ancestors so they may not be the best counter-examples, though the only modern rhinoceros that spends much of its time in the water is the hairy rhinoceros.
  • Diet: the fatty acids for the brain were present in sufficient quantities on the savannah.
  • Diving reflex: terrestrial mammals show this too; there has been insufficient study of other apes to use this as evidence that humans are special in this regard.
  • Body fat: distribution is similar to that of other primates.[citation needed]The quantities seen in present-day humans accord with those seen in domesticated mammals, i.e. we're quite well fed compared with wild dumb beasts. Humans have relatively more fat below the waist which serves as insulation when wading. [11]
  • Bipedalism: the AAH compares humans to quadrupeds, but we went from quadrupedal locomotion to brachiation; bipedalism follows quite readily from that.
  • Descended larynx: again, speech. The human larynx is not shaped like that of aquatic mammals, and descended larynxes are also seen in dogs, pigs, goats, monkeys and young chimps.[citation needed]
  • Nose shape: again, speech. Speech was rather important in human development, oddly enough.
  • Sebaceous glands: not actually found in aquatic mammals. Appear to be sexually dimorphic (highly active in adolescent human males, scent receptors highly active in adolescent human females).
  • Swimming: humans really aren't that good at swimming. Dogs and cats do about as well.

A third major problem is there are actual characteristics indicative of aquatic mammals which humans notably lack. Aquatic mammals are testicond and have internal testes to insulate the gonads; humans are not testicond. Aquatic mammals also store large amounts of oxygen in the blood rather than the lungs; a trait lacked by humans.

The aquatic ape theory cannot easily explain why these features were maintained after our ancestors supposedly left the water and moved to savannahs. [12]

Further, there's good evidence that many of the traits claimed to fall under the umbrella of the aquatic ape hypothesis evolved at radically different points in human evolutionary history. Fossils from 4.4 million years ago display bipedalism, while still possessing small brains long after, and not evolving sparse body hair until later still.

One of the largest problem with the theory is that since the 1960s rather than improving and gathering evidence, the theory has become more nebulous and vague. Rather than some specific aquatic phase modern Aquatic Ape theorists cite anything from fresh water millions of years ago, salt water habitation more recently, several different aquatic phases or a general proximity to water to a greater degree than other apes. Incidentally other apes and even some monkeys sometimes gather food from water and may stand bipedally to do this. [13] [14]

There are also anti-science objections lodged against the creation of the hypothesis because Morgan had the idea first and then simply found differences between humans and other apes and composed ad hoc reasons associated with water. One could cherry pick data for many such pet theories without any merit behind them, while making them sound good on paper.

[edit] Reception

Many people have become convinced that the hypothesis is wrong without understanding very well what the hypothesis is. Algis Kuliukas simply believes that our ancestors may have spent more time in water than other apes and this may have started our line of evolution. Kuliukas does not suggest that our ancestors ever were amphibious to the extent that, for example, seals are. [15] This is, however an exception.

The aquatic ape hypothesis has mostly been ignored by palaeoanthropologists, and its strongest reception has been in popular literature and magazines. Very little research has been published in scientific journals directly supportive or critical of the hypothesis. Morgan blames the poor reception to the idea on people's perception of herself personally, since she has no advanced degree, and at the time was a self-professed fervent feminist.

Supporters of the theory claim that this lukewarm reception resulted from the fact that Elaine Morgan was not a member of the palaeoanthropological establishment. Detractors maintain that the lack of convincing evidence may have played a role.

[edit] Modern aquatic primates

  • Japanese macaque - since they live in a cold climate, during the winter, they frequent certain hot springs to keep warm.
  • Certain bonobos spend a certain amount of time in water, either in the shallows or crossing it.
  • Chimpanzees. Apparently not as much as bonobos, but this link shows a swimming one as does this one which shows a chimp walking bipedally in water. Apparently the chimps use a kind of breaststroke. [1]
  • Orang utans have been known to spend time in water and swim.
  • Some monkeys in Thailand have also been filmed diving into water.[2]. The Proboscis monkey loves swimming too See here

And, of course, Homo sapiens. Certain humans live in deserts etc, but some humans, especially those in the Indian Ocean islands, spend a lot of time in the sea pearl diving etc. Others are keen swimmers across distances of sea. While many humans are not currently "aquatic", a notable minority are.

On the other hand, sea monkeys, are not a primate at all.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Vaneechoutte, M. 2000. Report of the Symposium ‘Water and Human Evolution’}}. Human Evolution 15(3) 243-251.
  2. A Theory on the Evolution of the Habitual Orthograde Human Bipedalism - The "Amphibisce Generalistheorie": Niemitz, C
  3. The Aquatic Ape: Elaine Morgan
  4. Was man more aquatic in the past? (NewScientist): Hardy, A.
  5. Evidence for the unique function of docosahexanoic acid (DHA) during the evolution of the modern hominid brain (Lipids): Crawford, M et al
  6. Kingdon, Jonathan. (2003) Lowly Origin Princeton University Press, 242
  7. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aquatic-Ape-Hypothesis-Credible-Evolution/dp/0285635182
  8. Pond, Caroline M. 1991 "Adipose Tissue in Human Evolution", pp. 193-220. The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction? Edited by Machteld Roede, Jan Wind, John M. Patrick and Vernon Reynolds. Souvenir Press: London.
  9. aquatic elephant evolution
  10. aquatic rhinoceroses evolution
  11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819487/?tool=pmcentrez
  12. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/aquatic_ape_theory.html
  13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819487/?tool=pmcentrez
  14. The last suggestion could make sense because evolving humans being more intelligent than other apes would better find ways of getting to food in any lake, river, stream, costal environment where they happened to be. Perhaps there was no specific aquatic phase. Perhaps there were evolving pre-humans/humans making use of water when there happened to be water based resources in their area but able to manage without when there was relatively little water. After all that is how modern humans behave. This in itself could perhaps have enabled us to evolve some limited adaptations to water. Perhaps there was some limited aquatic phase and the readiness of evolving hominids after this aquatic phase to use water opportunistically was sufficient to maintain some aquatic adaptations.
  15. http://www.riverapes.com/
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support