Thoughts on the aquatic ape hypothesis?

http://www.ted.com/talks/elaine_morgan_says_we_evolved_from_aquatic_apes?language=en

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FGRH%2FGRH59_01%2FS0016672300030184a.pdf&code=e20c00395ed559c72cf84720c13bb8d5

It'd be interesting an interesting discovery.

It's a form of feminism, but not backed up with as much evidence as typical feminist arguments.

Anyway, it's patently false. If we were ever aquatic, we'd have a lot more hair than our evolutionary cousins, not less. We'd be bulky and round instead of all gangly. We're built to dissipate heat, not keep it in.

The AAH has received little serious attention or acceptance from mainstream paleoanthropologists,[20][68][69][70] has been met with significant skepticism[70][71] and is not considered a strong scientific hypothesis.[20][5] The AAH does not appear to have passed the peer review process, and despite Morgan being praised by various scholars, none of her work has appeared in any academic journals of anthropology or related disciplines.[62] The AAH is thought by some anthropologists to be accepted readily by popular audiences, students and non-specialist scholars because of its simplicity.[4] In 1987 a symposium was held in Valkenburg, the Netherlands, titled "Aquatic Ape: Fact or fiction?", which published its proceedings in 1991.[14][72] A review of Morgan's book The Scars of Evolution stated that it did not address the central questions of anthropology – how the human and chimpanzee gene lines diverged – which was why it was ignored by the scholarly community. The review also stated that Morgan ignored the fossil record and skirted the absence of evidence that australopithecine underwent any adaptations to water, making the hypothesis impossible to validate from fossils.[60]

>>7646724
>but not backed up with as much evidence as typical feminist arguments.

It's not possible to have a negative amount of evidence, anon.

>>7646767
Perhaps it's an imaginary value then? It would be all the more fitting.

Stupid. There is absolutely no reason our ancestors would be aquatic, although our ability to forage for marine resources definitely helped with the development of our superior brains.
Human physiology evolved for running, definitely not swimming.

File: F5.large.jpg (211KB, 1186x1280px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1186x1280px

Based on scientific ignorance. When you understand how a given gene has multiple effects, you understand how the modern human phenotype is the result of a few mutations among apes. Many normal features of humanity are in fact disorders, relative to our ancestors.

Notably, like more mainstream hypothesis's, it ignores the impact of mutagens and teratogens. Repeated, multi-generational exposures to such molecules can induce permanent changes in the genome of epigenetics of a gene pool.

The real conspiracy is to deny intelligence and the ability of organisms to consciously decide their future forms and environments.

>>7647825
What do you think about the spectrum of cellular intelligence, anon? Whether in germline cells or the system as a whole.

It seems clear that environment and mate selection doesn't account for the entirety of a population's evolution.

I'M NOT FAT I'M ADAPTED TO OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
t:AAH proponents

File: d4VlTaA.jpg (34KB, 620x640px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x640px

>>7647830
pic related

>>7647972
in a few decades when our nwo masters have taken over and established their brave new world, this will be taught in schools as fact.

>>7647825
>consciously decide their future forms
Comrade Lysenko pls go

>>7647972
I would like to argue that our bodies are not made for earths gravity (obviously!!). But for a lesser force. Because we live in 1g instead of the 0.15g we are intended, the large number of ankle, knee and spine problems exist and a necessity to watch ones weight. Fat is good, and the more you can gather and store on-body, the greater your chance of survival!
wake up people!
>we are fat space monkeys

>>7647828

There's evidence that memory is stored in the neuron, not at the synapse. If this is so, memory would be an innate facet of biology - memory would exist in anything containing DNA and RNA contained by a controlling protein envelope.

When we speak of memory, we mean the script that decides the pattern of action potentials that produces behavior in an organism. We also assume that subjective consciousness is behavior which can be objectively observed via DNI. As well, we deny a mindspace, and affirm a materialist, mind-body monism.

If we simply grant the same level of consciousness and problem-solving skills to microorganisms that we grant to people, we have an explanation for all order in the biosphere. Diatoms use silicon, and A. muscaria uses vanadium. Biology could be defined as organic chemistry, and carbon can bond with just about anything.

>>7648005

What's the difference between humanity inserting proteins into cells to induce cancer and mutation within fertilized eggs, and nature accidentally doing the same thing? Humanity is just hijacking nature's methods.

Whether a gene is hypo or hyper active, as the picture I posted illustrates, can drastically alter limb shape. If your parents got exposed to the right thing at the right time, your body will form differently in a macroscopic, visible way. You inherit your parents (Modified) gamete genes. Gene transformation can make somatic mutations germ line mutations.

Giraffes don't get longer necks by stretching - they mutate horrifically from the ingestion of poisons, and we eventually get used to the mutants. Autism, Downs syndrome and schizophrenia are evolution in action.

>>7647972
>tropical beaches
>needing blubber

bad enough to hinge it on debunked aquatic ape theory, but to fuck it all up like that... fatty has too much fat in their brain.

>>7648332

Why do Hippos have blubber? Because water has a higher thermal conductivity, and you lose heat faster.

Humans have subcutaneous fat because we have no hair on our bodies, and would freeze to death even in tropical regions on particularly cold, rainy nights.

Like it or not, you get fat because it was objectively needed in primitive life. Civilization has fallen before and subjected entire cultures to bitter cold and starvation, where the people who had weight to lose survived and the people with low mass starved to death. You've retained the ability to get fat because your ancestors (Often as recently as the 19th century, or even today if you live in the right country) would have died if they couldn't. You inherited the winning genes.

Which make you fat. Funnily enough, women live longer than men, and have higher body fat percentages, in general. As soon as women go through menopause, they lose primary and secondary sexual characteristics - and begin to suffer from health issues that effect men. If you look at old women, one of the major changes is the loss of subcutaneous fat.

Calorie restriction works not by making you skinny, but by making you smaller - the earlier it starts, the longer the lifespan and the smaller the organism. Obesity is common in the mice that result.

Also, your brain is composed insulted with myelin - with is 70-85% lipids, or fat in other words. MS is caused by the destruction of these myelin sheaths - put simply, you better have lots of fat in your brain.

>>7647603
Heh, sociology is a complex science. In this attached image, we plot the real part of their evidence.

>>7647753
>Human physiology evolved for running, definitely not swimming.
Oh god, the endurance hunting ape theory. As if that were more credible than the aquatic ape theory.

Humans didn't evolve to be good at running marathons. We have to undertake disciplined training AND be in uncommon good health to be able to do so. Endurance hunting is an unusual behavior for humans, while ambush hunting is common.

Our potential for distance running is largely a side-effect of our efficient walking, which has an immediate payoff for every incremental improvement. Distance running would be expensive and not very useful until we were very good at it.

I believe that humans evolved to be able to do things that others can't, to give us options we can intelligently take advantage of, particularly in competition with other hominids.

Our eyes work reasonably well in both light and dark, and we particularly have the advantage over most other animals in the dawn and twilight. We can take long, brisk walks in the heat of day, and still be in shape to fight or sprint. We can both climb and swim with reasonable competence.

We love edges and boundaries. It makes sense that some of our adaptations have to do with exploiting where the land meets the water (not just sea shores, but lake shores and riverbanks), as others have to do with where forest and open plain meet.

>>7648959y
But we lost hair because we managed to keep warmth with houses and clothing. In the past only rich bastards could be fat. You are a fat FAGGOT antiscience bitch

Kill yourself my man.

>>7649160

>But we lost hair because we managed to keep warmth with houses and clothing

Most people wore rags and lived in hovels. Exposure is, to this day, a major killer of the elderly in first world nations.

Humans lost their body hair either as a result of sexual selection, or as a side effect to other mutations - the epidermis shares a germ layer with the nervous system. Any mutations related to neural development will also effect skin and hair development - the scalp buds off from the neural tube.

>In the past only rich bastards could be fat

Fat on the limbs, buttocks and breasts isn't bad for you - it's the core fat around your organs which is bad for you. With age, fat transfers from the limbs and skin to the torso. Men start losing subcutaneous fat during puberty, and women start losing it during menopause. When most people talk about 'fat,' they mean unaesthetic body fat - few women complain about having ten pounds of tits and ass.

It's not a matter of being fat or skinny - you either put weight on in an attractive, healthy manner or you don't.

>You are a fat FAGGOT antiscience bitch

Says the person who doesn't know why Hippos are fatties, or, for that matter, why he has fat in the first place.

The solution to your dissatisfaction with your body is science, not starving yourself. Figure out how to store energy without fat - other animals do it. Moreover, realize that you're not talking about fat - you're talking about a certain build that you think is attractive, and should focus on building it out of molecular building blocks.

If other people want to be ugly, let them - I'll concern myself with my own body. I'd rather devote my time to understanding biology so I can bend it to my will, than project my dislike of fat people and cry "faggot".

>>7647825

Pic is from what article?

>>7647972
>fats accepting that they are land wales

>kek