Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post Reply
User avatar
leo-rcc
Robo-Warrior
Posts: 7848
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:09 pm
About me: Combat robot builder
Location: Hoogvliet-Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by leo-rcc » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:12 pm



Elaine Morgan is a tenacious proponent of the aquatic ape hypothesis: 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 mainstream science doesn't take it seriously.

This is a TED talk, www.ted.com .
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
My combat robot site: http://www.team-rcc.org
My other favorite atheist forum: http://www.atheistforums.org

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by klr » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:39 pm

There's a very long thread on this subject back you-know-where. :levi:
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
leo-rcc
Robo-Warrior
Posts: 7848
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:09 pm
About me: Combat robot builder
Location: Hoogvliet-Rotterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by leo-rcc » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:41 pm

Do you know I haven't been back there in months?
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
My combat robot site: http://www.team-rcc.org
My other favorite atheist forum: http://www.atheistforums.org

Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you

User avatar
GeneticJen
Queen of the Drone Age
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:09 pm
About me: Kylo Jen. Qui-Gon Jen. Old Jen Kenobi. Jen Erso.
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by GeneticJen » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:42 pm

That thread is far too long. And becoming quite a joke.

User avatar
klr
(%gibber(who=klr, what=Leprageek);)
Posts: 32964
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:25 pm
About me: The money was just resting in my account.
Location: Airstrip Two
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by klr » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:44 pm

leo-rcc wrote:Do you know I haven't been back there in months?
And I ... well ... erm ...

Don't mention the war. :ddpan:
Peter Harrison wrote:That thread is far too long. And becoming quite a joke.
You're a long way from home sonny. :coffee:
God has no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion. - Superintendent Chalmers

It's not up to us to choose which laws we want to obey. If it were, I'd kill everyone who looked at me cock-eyed! - Rex Banner

The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression. - Gary Larson

:mob: :comp: :mob:

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by Rum » Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:59 pm

..and I always assumed by forbears were water nymphs..

User avatar
Geoff
Pouncer
Posts: 9374
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: Wigan, UK
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by Geoff » Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:22 pm

Peter Harrison wrote:That thread is far too long. And becoming quite a joke.

I do hate "Arguments from Authority", but if the likes of Dennett and Attenborough see something in it, it does seem to merit more attention...
Image
"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32528
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by charlou » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:59 am

Read her book, The Descent of Woman, a few years ago and found the aquatic ape hypothesis fascinating, somewhat well researched (by others - she acknowledges them) and described, and not completely implausible.
no fences

User avatar
SevenOfNine
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:38 am
About me: RDF refugee :-(
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by SevenOfNine » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:21 am

Charlou wrote:Read her book, The Descent of Woman, a few years ago and found the aquatic ape hypothesis fascinating, somewhat well researched (by others - she acknowledges them) and described, and not completely implausible.

I agree that Elaine Morgan is a talented amateur evolutionary thinker. However, most of the traits she discusses can be better explained by heterochronic changes, specifically paedomorphosis. I am not saying that a semi-aquatic theory is totally wrong. There may be some merit in it. A semi-aquatic lifestyle for part of the evolutionary history of humans is likely, so are some of the changes. The evidence is weak for the argument that the aquatic existence being the major factor in our evolution. That being said, it is a brilliant book, if not entirely original. I certainly think she was a better scientist than Desmond Morris. [And he was a professional] :D
Beliefs Are Irrational, we will assimilate you :=)
Logical Fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
AGNOTOLOGY: "The study of deliberately created ignorance-such as the falsehoods about evolution that are created by creationists".
Image

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by Clinton Huxley » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:37 am

I remember arguing with that Algis guy on RDF. I was not convinced by this hypothesis - the "evidence" comprised of anything that some kind of aquatic "just-so" story could be applied to. Bull, IMO.
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

User avatar
BrettA
Master Muff and Lube Guru
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:16 am

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by BrettA » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:00 pm

SevenOfNine wrote:I agree that Elaine Morgan is a talented amateur evolutionary thinker. However, most of the traits she discusses can be better explained by heterochronic changes, specifically paedomorphosis...
I haven't kept up on this for many years, but one trait I recall thinking "Makes sense!" was the difference in nose and nostrils (downward, in adaptation to avoid accidental water ingestion). I don't know who suggested that and haven't yet looked at the TED vid, but is that still a current 'argument' and does it make sense? And is an explanation within your paedomorphosis?
"It's just a fact: After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F!"

User avatar
SevenOfNine
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:38 am
About me: RDF refugee :-(
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by SevenOfNine » Sat Aug 08, 2009 3:55 am

BrettA wrote:
SevenOfNine wrote:I agree that Elaine Morgan is a talented amateur evolutionary thinker. However, most of the traits she discusses can be better explained by heterochronic changes, specifically paedomorphosis...
I haven't kept up on this for many years, but one trait I recall thinking "Makes sense!" was the difference in nose and nostrils (downward, in adaptation to avoid accidental water ingestion). I don't know who suggested that and haven't yet looked at the TED vid, but is that still a current 'argument' and does it make sense? And is an explanation within your paedomorphosis?

Elaine Morgan makes some good sense quite often. For example, it is true that established science poo-poos new ideas and paradigms. This is wrong, and against the scientific method. I do not agree with her about scientific belief though. Good science, [as she says] should not be about belief or the popularity of ideas.

So Morgan is sometimes conflating the beliefs of individual scientists with the methodology of science. Yes, there is a lag time for new ideas being accepted, but this has much more to do with the evidence being available at the time than any dogmatic holding on to pet theories.

Morgan poses the question: "Why are we so different [phenotypically] from the apes, when we are so similar genetically"? This is where heterochrony comes in. As noted by Gould (1977) in "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" very small changes in the Hox genes [responsible for development and the timing of development] can lead to profound morphological changes.

Humans have baby fat and little hair because we are paedomorphic. We retain juvenile features into sexual maturity. In other words, the adult ["ape"] form is suppressed. [For a time]. There is no doubt that in an aquatic environment, such changes such as sub-cutaneous fat and sparse body hair gives the proto-human selective advantage in the aquatic environment, but there are paedomorphic traits that also give survival advantage on the Savanna. Young apes are more agile than their adults. Retaining such agility into sexual maturity serves both the Savanna habitat and the aquatic one. I think that human ancestry was exposed to both environments. But note that Morgan did not present a possible mechanism for her adaptations, she only talked about adaptations that were selected on. This is the primary weakness of her argument. She was mystified by the difference between apes and humans, given such a small difference in the genomes between ape and human.

I do not feel contempt for Morgan. She is a very insightful person, and as an "amateur" evolutionary biologist she is perhaps without peer. But I do not think she has proved her case. Neither has the "Savanna Habitat" camp, although I think the weight of evidence is with them, at least for the moment. Alternate hypotheses compete in science based on the weight of evidence both for and against them. A sort of "natural selection" of scientific theory.

Although there are [non-cultural] differences between the fifth ape and the other four, I think Morgan is exaggerating those differences. Baby chimps and baby humans are very similar. In almost every way. Which just proves my point. Humans never grew up, apes did. We are the Peter Pan species in the ape world. Interestingly, there is some neoteny in apes too, compares to more distantly related monkeys, so paedomorphosis is a family affair.
Beliefs Are Irrational, we will assimilate you :=)
Logical Fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
AGNOTOLOGY: "The study of deliberately created ignorance-such as the falsehoods about evolution that are created by creationists".
Image

User avatar
BrettA
Master Muff and Lube Guru
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:16 am

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by BrettA » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:25 am

SevenOfNine wrote:
BrettA wrote:
SevenOfNine wrote:I agree that Elaine Morgan is a talented amateur evolutionary thinker. However, most of the traits she discusses can be better explained by heterochronic changes, specifically paedomorphosis...
I haven't kept up on this for many years, but one trait I recall thinking "Makes sense!" was the difference in nose and nostrils (downward, in adaptation to avoid accidental water ingestion). I don't know who suggested that and haven't yet looked at the TED vid, but is that still a current 'argument' and does it make sense? And is an explanation within your paedomorphosis?
Elaine Morgan makes some good sense quite often. For example...
Errr... Did you just skirt my question entirely or am I not understanding where anything about what 'made sense' to me (downward nose and nostrils to avoid water ingestion) is discussed? Just curious. And as I said in another thread, I'm slow sometimes.
"It's just a fact: After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F!"

User avatar
SevenOfNine
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:38 am
About me: RDF refugee :-(
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

Post by SevenOfNine » Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:24 am

BrettA wrote:
SevenOfNine wrote:
BrettA wrote:
SevenOfNine wrote:I agree that Elaine Morgan is a talented amateur evolutionary thinker. However, most of the traits she discusses can be better explained by heterochronic changes, specifically paedomorphosis...
I haven't kept up on this for many years, but one trait I recall thinking "Makes sense!" was the difference in nose and nostrils (downward, in adaptation to avoid accidental water ingestion). I don't know who suggested that and haven't yet looked at the TED vid, but is that still a current 'argument' and does it make sense? And is an explanation within your paedomorphosis?
Elaine Morgan makes some good sense quite often. For example...
Errr... Did you just skirt my question entirely or am I not understanding where anything about what 'made sense' to me (downward nose and nostrils to avoid water ingestion) is discussed? Just curious. And as I said in another thread, I'm slow sometimes.
Sorry Brett, I was not skirting, but [to my embarrassment] forgot about the nose thing after I re-watched the movie clip on Morgan. :-( To answer honestly, I do not know. Perhaps paedomorphosis [PM] caused the nostrils to "migrate" to their present position. Most of the other skull features are explained by PM. And as I said, I am not rejecting the water hypothesis completely. But one problem is that while some pre-humans lived near on on the coastline, many others lived inland. It would be nice to find some fossils that would confirm the pre-humans living near the sea. Besides, one still needs a mechanism for the aquatic adaptation. Living in a water environment provides the selection pressure, but you still need a mechanism to provide the trait for selection. The [relatively sudden] gracile form appearing in the hominids suggests that PM was the mechanism, is it happened a bit too quick to occur just from point mutations and gene shuffling via the crossing-over in meiosis. As PM requires just a few Hox genes to mutate, it seems like Pm is more likely than the more extensive alterations required by the presence of all the other morphological changes happening at the same time. [Like head size, vertical face, muscle weakness, smaller teeth, and other "juvenile" features. ]
Beliefs Are Irrational, we will assimilate you :=)
Logical Fallacies http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
AGNOTOLOGY: "The study of deliberately created ignorance-such as the falsehoods about evolution that are created by creationists".
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests