tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post1678078070944377736..comments2024-03-12T03:23:42.976-04:00Comments on NeuroDojo: Is the aquatic ape hypothesis fringe science?Zen Faulkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811309183398223358noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-38492579236207231382013-05-26T09:37:33.771-04:002013-05-26T09:37:33.771-04:00Humans didn’t descend from aquatic apes, of course...Humans didn’t descend from aquatic apes, of course, although our ancestors were too slow & heavy for regular running over open plains as some anthropologists still believe. Instead, Pleistocene Homo populations simply followed the coasts & rivers in Africa & Eurasia (800,000 years ago, they even reached Flores more than 18 km overseas), google “econiche Homo”.<br />–eBook “Was Man more aquatic in the past?” introd.Phillip Tobias<br />http://www.benthamscience.com/ebooks/9781608052448/index.htm<br />–guest post at Greg Laden’s blog<br />http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/01/30/common-misconceptions-and-unproven-assumptions-about-the-aquatic-ape-theory<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-87015766176476058542009-08-17T18:21:43.337-04:002009-08-17T18:21:43.337-04:00Zen said:
One logical prediction to me would seem ...Zen said:<br />One logical prediction to me would seem to be, “If we had an aquatic past, then we should routinely find hominid fossils associated with ancient lakes, rivers, and other water bodies.” To the best of my knowledge, that hasn’t been the case.<br /><br />Actually, that is exactly the case. Pretty much ALL of the hominids fossils found in Africa are found associated with river or lake environments. Lucy, for one, was found associated with turtle eggs, alligators and other aquatic animals. The thing is, a wet environment is very favorable for making fossils in the first place. The savannah doesn't preserve fossils - bones get scattered and eaten. Rainforests don't preserve fossils well. I think they are too acidic. Rivers, lakes, bogs, perfect. Bones get buried quickly in sediment. So the question is: are all the fossils found in places were there was lots of water because that's the only ones preserved or because that's were the creatures were always hanging out? Impossible to say. But as I say, we definately routinely find hominid fossils associated with ancient lakes and rivers. By homo erectus time, cut marks on bones of river animals like hippos and crocodiles become common.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14501783390526777583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3522311.post-46699713089626087462009-07-31T15:52:59.833-04:002009-07-31T15:52:59.833-04:00IMO another big problem with the aquatic ape hypot...IMO another big problem with the aquatic ape hypothesis is that none of the "explanations" are really any better than the alternatives, one by one or all in a group.<br /><br />On that subject, are you familiar with Dr. Aaron G. Filler's "Upright Ape" hypothesis? The suggestion that the ancestral Great ape already walked upright, with the brachiating adaptations of Orangs and Chimpanzees/gorrillas being secondary? This <b>does</b> make testable predictions, including that we should be able to find fossil offshoots of our lineage with signs of upright posture going all the way back (to the branching point perhaps 20MYA).<br /><br />I suspect that by hindsight, a decade from now, Filler's hypothesis won't turn out to be "fringe science".AKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.com