The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis suggests that human evolution was influenced by water bodies, explaining features like bipedalism and baldness. While controversial and ultimately rejected, it offers insights into the evolutionary process. Arguments for the theory include lack of fur, bipedalism, and control over breathing, while arguments against it cite vague and changing assumptions and features that can be explained by other means. Studying the theory can help falsify other theories of evolution.
The aquatic ape hypothesis, sometimes referred to as the aquatic ape theory or AAT, is a controversial theory in paleoanthropology that enjoyed popularity in the 1980s and early 1990s. The basic idea is that human evolution has been heavily influenced by the presence of water bodies, and many of our distinguishing features and differences from other primates, such as baldness and bipedalism, can be explained by referring to this aquatic habitat. . The main proponent of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is Elaine Morgan, a television playwright and feminist writer. While the theory was ultimately rejected by the paleoanthropological community, being aware of it and the reasons it was disproved can help us learn more about the nature of the evolutionary process.
The first argument for the Aquatic Ape idea comes from the lack of fur. Getting rid of our thick primate hair makes it easier to swim and dry faster when exiting a body of water. The next topic comes from bipedalism. It is argued that the buoyancy properties of water would have made the incremental evolution from quadrupedalism to bipedalism easier. Another argument comes from the control over our breathing. We can deliberately control our breath like many aquatic and semi-aquatic creatures, but unlike other terrestrial creatures.
There are several other anecdotal arguments for the aquatic ape hypothesis. Some are our excess fat, perpendicular nostrils, the ability of babies to hold their breath and swim from birth, the higher nutrition of fish compared to land animals, and face-to-face sex, as in dolphins, are all cited as possible. evidence of the influence of aquatic environments on our evolution.
There are many arguments against the aquatic ape hypothesis. The most obvious is that the arguments for it tend to be vague, offer few testable predictions, and change their assumptions based on what trait they’re trying to argue is related to an aquatic past. The theory’s premises have not changed substantially since the 1950s, when the theory was originally introduced.
Another argument is that most of the bodily features attributed to aquatic evolution by Aquatic Ape enthusiasts are either not truly unique to aquatic animals or their evolution can be explained by other means. For example, many nonaquatic monkey species are capable of walking bipedally, at least temporarily, which challenges the notion that water was needed to facilitate permanent bipedalism. Our lack of hair is likely the result of walking long distances and their corresponding need to dissipate heat more effectively. Our excess fat is common to all animals without natural predators and with large quantities of food. The aquatic ape hypothesis is not needed to explain any of this.
Sometimes theories teach us even more about science when they’re wrong than when they’re right. The aquatic ape hypothesis is often studied by paleoanthropologists as a way to falsify theories of evolution and as amenable to scientific testing as possible.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
