The Waterside Ape

[Udayana]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98

At last, after decades of proponents being ostracized, shunned and pilloried by some so-called scientists,  this theory is being taken seriously.  Three cheers for Elaine Morgan 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Waterside Ape.........................

.....................sounds like a Wetherspoons.

[Jack Knave]

Sounds interesting, I'll set my TV recorder for it.

[Udayana]

It's Radio 4 - not TV.

[Sebastian Toe]

It's Radio 4 - not TV.

Not an issue if you have Sky.......

[Jack Knave]

It's Radio 4 - not TV.

I know. My TV recorder records radio as well.

[Enki]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07w4y98

At last, after decades of proponents being ostracized, shunned and pilloried by some so-called scientists,  this theory is being taken seriously.  Three cheers for Elaine Morgan 

That is true, but it has been taken seriously in some circles for a long time. E.g. Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) and Desmond Morris (the Human Animal) to name but two. As a complete lay person I have been interested in the idea of the Aquatic Ape for at least 20 years, and I will listen to the broadcast with some interest. Although Elaine Morgan has produced highly questionable and unsupported arguments to defend the AAT,  perhaps she has been treated rather harshly perhaps because she was not a scientist but more prominently a literary writer and journalist.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Udayana,

This topic was discussed ages ago on this forum, like enki I thought it was fascinating, a swimming ape, another piece in the jigsaw that is evolution

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

That is true, but it has been taken seriously in some circles for a long time. E.g. Daniel Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) and Desmond Morris (the Human Animal) to name but two. As a complete lay person I have been interested in the idea of the Aquatic Ape for at least 20 years, and I will listen to the broadcast with some interest. Although Elaine Morgan has produced highly questionable and unsupported arguments to defend the AAT,  perhaps she has been treated rather harshly perhaps because she was not a scientist but more prominently a literary writer and journalist.

David Attenborough is also more journalist than scientist, and also under attack by scientists for supporting "pseudoscience" -in fact for signing a letter raising concerns about suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments.

I expect scientists to objectively investigate and consider ideas when proposed seriously, even, or maybe especially, when put forward by non-scientists. However often the first reaction is to pile in to defend their own careers and territory.

Paleoanthropolgy has and will always involve a degree of speculation just given the scarcity of physical evidence. Very often any hypothesis has to be well developed before scientists can even understand which observations and data are relevant.
 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Udayana,

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

Well I am convinced, why, because it makes perfect sense, well that and the fact she is a very sweet and funny little old lady

Also the fact that she is poking a finger at those scientists who live in their ivory towers.

So I get the impression that some parts of the scientific establishment are morphing into a kind of priesthood. But you know, that makes me feel good, because Richard Dawkins has told us how to treat a priesthood. (Laughter) He says, "Firstly, you've got to refuse to give it all the excessive awe and reverence it's been trained to receive." Right. I'll go ahead with that. And secondly, he says, "You must never be afraid to rock the boat." I'll go along with that too. Thank you very much.

I will say it again, but this time with feeling, science/evolution is there to be questioned, to be turned on its head, to be poked and prodded.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.

Who said that well it certainly wasn't me

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That most of humanity spends it's time ''up the creek'' is evidence of aquatic ancestry.

[Enki]

David Attenborough is also more journalist than scientist, and also under attack by scientists for supporting "pseudoscience" -in fact for signing a letter raising concerns about suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments.

I expect scientists to objectively investigate and consider ideas when proposed seriously, even, or maybe especially, when put forward by non-scientists. However often the first reaction is to pile in to defend their own careers and territory.

Paleoanthropolgy has and will always involve a degree of speculation just given the scarcity of physical evidence. Very often any hypothesis has to be well developed before scientists can even understand which observations and data are relevant.

Response to paragraph 1

But he is a scientist though, and one that I respect enormously. He has been a supporter of what originally was the aquatic ape theory/hypothesis for some years. As far as the suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments is concerned, I too have concerns. I'm not sure though why you think that such concerns have been linked to 'pseudoscience'. Perhaps, you can give some details.

Response to paragraph 2

And so do I, emphatically. Unfortunately, many scientists, especially anthropologists, have given many cogent counter arguments to Elaine Morgan's AA ideas and speculations over the years, basically because they are over simplistic rather than in line with genuine and objective research, wherever that may lead. If you wish me to, I could easily give you plenty of examples of her lack of rigour, although it would probably be boring for the general reader. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I think that she never produced any study which has actually been peer reviewed. It comes as no surprise to me that the original hypothesis of the aquatic ape has been watered(pardon the pun) down to become the 'waterside ape' of today.

Response to Paragraph 3

I agree with most of what you say above, except for the end part, where you seem to suggest that scientists have to wait for an hypothesis to be well developed before they can understand which observations and data are relevant. Indeed, scientists are usually responsible for actually producing hypotheses on the basis of observations and data which they do understand, and then submitting their findings to their peers fror critical analysis.

And as a note to Gonners, here. She was a "very sweet and funny little old lady" as she died in 2013.

And, finally, I shall be listening on Wed. to the talk on Radio 4 with an open mind, and, especially, because new evidence is promised.

[Udayana]

Hi Enki,

Response to paragraph 1

But he is a scientist though, and one that I respect enormously. He has been a supporter of what originally was the aquatic ape theory/hypothesis for some years. As far as the suffering of primates in neuroscience experiments is concerned, I too have concerns. I'm not sure though why you think that such concerns have been linked to 'pseudoscience'. Perhaps, you can give some details.

Story in The Independent

"The UK Expert Group said: “We are disappointed to see that David Attenborough and a number of scientists have been misled by the pseudoscience in the paper by CFI, an organisation intent on ending research with all animals, not just primates. "

Of-course there may well be objections to findings or suggestions in the CFI paper, but there's no need to rubbish it as pseudoscience, or the signatories to the letter, when they could just list the issues.

Response to paragraph 2

And so do I, emphatically. Unfortunately, many scientists, especially anthropologists, have given many cogent counter arguments to Elaine Morgan's AA ideas and speculations over the years, basically because they are over simplistic rather than in line with genuine and objective research, wherever that may lead. If you wish me to, I could easily give you plenty of examples of her lack of rigour, although it would probably be boring for the general reader. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I think that she never produced any study which has actually been peer reviewed. It comes as no surprise to me that the original hypothesis of the aquatic ape has been watered(pardon the pun) down to become the 'waterside ape' of today.

Her role was really to keep the idea alive rather than research it herself. She herself suggested the idea of semi-aquatic lakeside environments rather than the original full-blown  "aquatic-ape". Given the climate history of Africa, hominin evolution must include adaptation to very wet conditions as well as very dry or savannah environments.

Response to Paragraph 3

I agree with most of what you say above, except for the end part, where you seem to suggest that scientists have to wait for an hypothesis to be well developed before they can understand which observations and data are relevant. Indeed, scientists are usually responsible for actually producing hypotheses on the basis of observations and data which they do understand, and then submitting their findings to their peers fror critical analysis.

In theory that is how science proceeds and certainly it is presented in that way. But in practice it is more haphazard. You need a pretty good idea what you are looking for, and some breakthroughs occur when data from previous studies or experiments is re-examined from a new perspective. Sometimes you develop the theory first and then predict outcomes confirmed by experiments that you may not have the ability to run at the time.

And as a note to Gonners, here. She was a "very sweet and funny little old lady" as she died in 2013.

And, finally, I shall be listening on Wed. to the talk on Radio 4 with an open mind, and, especially, because new evidence is promised.

As will I

[Enki]

Hi Enki,

Story in The Independent

"The UK Expert Group said: “We are disappointed to see that David Attenborough and a number of scientists have been misled by the pseudoscience in the paper by CFI, an organisation intent on ending research with all animals, not just primates. "

Of-course there may well be objections to findings or suggestions in the CFI paper, but there's no need to rubbish it as pseudoscience, or the signatories to the letter, when they could just list the issues.
Her role was really to keep the idea alive rather than research it herself. She herself suggested the idea of semi-aquatic lakeside environments rather than the original full-blown  "aquatic-ape". Given the climate history of Africa, hominin evolution must include adaptation to very wet conditions as well as very dry or savannah environments.

In theory that is how science proceeds and certainly it is presented in that way. But in practice it is more haphazard. You need a pretty good idea what you are looking for, and some breakthroughs occur when data from previous studies or experiments is re-examined from a new perspective. Sometimes you develop the theory first and then predict outcomes confirmed by experiments that you may not have the ability to run at the time.

As will I

Yes I know that that David Attenborough signed this open letter concerning the level of suffering involved in primate experiments, as did many other scientists, anthropologists etc. What I can't understand is why the word 'pseudoscience' is being attached to his involvement. It seems to me that it is all to do with such things as value judgments and moral standpoints. It seems, like you, I see no reason for the word 'pseudoscience' to be used at all.

As regards Morgan's attitude to the aquatic ape hypothesis, she changed her attitude quite considerably from her first book on this subject(The Descent of Woman), where she suggested, for instance, that she had no difficulty in visualising aquatic apes crossing wide bodies of water, to later tending towards seeing swampland as their most probable habitat, citing the Everglades, Ganges Delta, the Amazon basin. Even later, she suggested that 'a flooded forest  offers a possible answer' which would unfortunately tend to invalidate much of her proposed evidence. Generally, therefore she seemed to move from the idea of a completely aquatic ape to one who inhabited some sort of littoral environment. I assume this was in response to the many criticisms of her ideas. Her lack of clarity regarding the claimed niche for these supposed proto hominids makes it difficult to assess her hypothesis properly. Incidentally, if human evolution 'must' include adaptation to very wet conditions as well as very dry or savannah environments, it should also include adaptation to mosaic forest environments too.

Unfortunately though, so far, no evidence has yet come to light(with the provisional proviso of the aforementioned program), which makes her hypotheses on such things as bipedalism, the descended layrnx, subcutaneous fat, brain size, fossils(apart from the rather controversial oreopithecus) sit uneasily beside other alternative hypotheses. So, in the case of the AAT, there seems to be no really reliable evidence(either new or previously ignored) to further her ideas, and plenty of alternative  suggestions of at least equal merit.  I think this is why, so far, the idea of the aquatic ape hasn't really made any substantive ground. In this particular case, the AAT, which was first advanced in 1942 seems rather impervious to predicted outcomes, experimentation or new evidence being found. However, I wait to see just what this program reveals.
 

[Dicky Underpants]

Unfortunately though, so far, no evidence has yet come to light(with the provisional proviso of the aforementioned program), which makes her hypotheses on such things as bipedalism, the descended layrnx, subcutaneous fat, brain size, fossils(apart from the rather controversial oreopithecus) sit uneasily beside other alternative hypotheses. So, in the case of the AAT, there seems to be no really reliable evidence(either new or previously ignored) to further her ideas, and plenty of alternative  suggestions of at least equal merit.  I think this is why, so far, the idea of the aquatic ape hasn't really made any substantive ground. In this particular case, the AAT, which was first advanced in 1942 seems rather impervious to predicted outcomes, experimentation or new evidence being found. However, I wait to see just what this program reveals.

However, regarding the fossil evidence, Elaine Morgan suggested that the admittedly meagre evidence for hominid evolution beyond Australopithecus africanus and afarensis (which in itself is hardly extensive) might be greatly enlarged if palaeontologists started looking for evidence more in African coastal regions, than in the previous inland areas of investigation. If there has been such coastal investigation, I think it highly unlikely that it has been any where near as extensive as that carried out in Olduvai Gorge. But then you've got to convince a lot of stubborn (and no doubt cash-strapped) scientists that such areas are worth investigating in order to verify a hypothesis which owes much of its claims to a woman.

It was interesting to hear in this morning's programme that Sir Alastair Hardy (who perhaps first came up with the idea) was so coy about this hypothesis that he waited decades before airing it - and that at an obscure provincial meeting for aquatic sports-people.

[Dicky Underpants]

Although Elaine Morgan has produced highly questionable and unsupported arguments to defend the AAT,  perhaps she has been treated rather harshly perhaps because she was not a scientist but more prominently a literary writer and journalist.

Sir Alastair Hardy defended her rather neatly over this by pointing out that Darwin had flunked his medical degree and only completed a university course in theology - whilst Alfred Russell Wallace left school at 14 and became an apprentice surveyor, before he embarked on his heroic voyages of biological discovery.

[Jack Knave]

From what I understand what ended up as Homo sapiens was an amalgam of various versions of the species and no doubt these waterside lot just intermingled with the savannah lot to create us, and hence some of the traits that are still present in us today. 

[Enki]

However, regarding the fossil evidence, Elaine Morgan suggested that the admittedly meagre evidence for hominid evolution beyond Australopithecus africanus and afarensis (which in itself is hardly extensive) might be greatly enlarged if palaeontologists started looking for evidence more in African coastal regions, than in the previous inland areas of investigation. If there has been such coastal investigation, I think it highly unlikely that it has been any where near as extensive as that carried out in Olduvai Gorge. But then you've got to convince a lot of stubborn (and no doubt cash-strapped) scientists that such areas are worth investigating in order to verify a hypothesis which owes much of its claims to a woman.

It was interesting to hear in this morning's programme that Sir Alastair Hardy (who perhaps first came up with the idea) was so coy about this hypothesis that he waited decades before airing it - and that at an obscure provincial meeting for aquatic sports-people.

Hi Dicky,

In response to this post and your post 15:

The trouble with the fossil evidence is that it cannot easily be used to substantiate any of Morgan's claims because they mainly relate to soft tissue. of course you are right that even the fossil evidence is meagre, but, even then, this often relates to the proximity of bodies of water, as you would expect. (e.g. The Turkana Boy found in the sediment of lake Turkana or the various finds at the Olduvai Gorge, which was once the site of a large lake.) The idea that early hominids tended to settle near areas of water(especially fresh water such as rivers/lakes) is not disputed. Nor is the idea disputed that early hominids might well use the coast as they journeyed out of Africa. However the idea that Morgan puts forward. for instance, in her book, the Scars of Evolution, is that between 6 to 7 My and 3.5My ago, the primates ancestral to man went through a semi aquatic or wholly aquatic stage, for long enough to leave vestigial clues, possibly because they were trapped on an island. Now, it is possible that a small, isolated population under stress can lead to significant evolutionary adaptation, but it does seem unlikely. Of course, there are examples of species moving from sea to land, and then back to sea(e.g.ceteceans and sirenians), but these have not been in the remarkably short time suggested by the AAH. Hence, to be convincing, I would suggest that such extraordinary claims as Morgan produces, need some powerful  rather than suggestive evidence. There are also a whole bunch of difficult questions, which the AAH doesn't seem to be able to answer in any convincing way.

The fact that a woman stuck her neck out, and not even a scientist at that, may have had some relevance to attitudes when she produced her series of books dealing whole or in part with the AAH. That is why I suggested that she may have been treated harshly, but that is no reason not to look at her ideas as objectively and critically as possible. I certainly do not examine her ideas from the viewpoint that she was a woman, a feminist icon and a layperson in these matters. That would be silly.

However, I await for the second part of David Attenborough's broadcast before I come to any conclusion on new evidence to be offered in favour of the 'Waterside Ape', although, so far, it isn't looking particularly promising.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Amateur Scientists,

And here was me thinking the study of evolution was as dull as ditch water, but no! when you step away from the likes of Dawkin who only wants to blow raspberries at intelligent design proponents it becomes a fascinating subject.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v0hhm#play

Very interesting programme, is it sacrilegious to label the father of evolution as a amateur scientist When your better half asks "Dear, does my bum look big in these jeans" you can reply "yes dear, but your Subcutaneous Fat is lovely and you can't fight evolution"

Do you suffer from surfers ear dude!!

I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

Who doesn't like seafood! is this why I am a shellfish sort of person, is this why, as a kid I was dragged to Saltcoats every summer, my parents were just reacting to their evolutionary instincts.

Is this why in fetal development we have webbed finger and toes

Taking the sea air, the Victorian's swore by it,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9403379/The-sea-air-It-really-is-healthy.html

Us Glaswegians love to go "doon the watter"

http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/scottish-phrase-of-the-week-doon-the-watter-1-3579774

We are just following our evolutionary instincts.

Dear Forum,

How many of us swim, how many of us enjoy swimming?

Dear Parents,

Do your kids swim? How early did they learn to swim?

https://www.waterbabies.co.uk/baby-swimming/benefits-of-learning-early

5.   It develops their co-ordination
Being in the water helps improve co-ordination and balance, and learning to swim with toys will help your little one’s co-ordination and motor skills. A 2009 study by the Norwegian University of Science & Technology found that babies who swim have better balance and can grasp objects more easily¹ than non-swimmers.

Did I not read somewhere that this is one of the reasons why our hands wrinkle in water, so that we can grasp slippery objects

Anyway, enough meandering, I look forward to the second part of the programme.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

Part two was just as interesting. It's just fascinating to be at and see a point where the paradigm is, possibly, about to flip.

Science is not just a mechanical progress towards "the truth" but its path is influenced by many other factors - fashion, status, money, politics, prejudice, persistence ...  sometimes just luck.

[Enki]

Having listened twice to both programmes, I certainly find them interesting, and there is much in them that I have no disagreement with whatever. As far as new evidence is concerned though, I genuinely cannot find anything that is particularly new at all.

This almost seems a re-run of the programme that David Attenborough did in 2005, which I listened to at the time, and which originally sparked my interest in the AAH.

For those who wish to examine a different take on The AAH, I would point them to:

http://www.aquaticape.org/

[Gonnagle]

Dear Udayana,

Well I am convinced ( well about eating more oily fish ) and by a happy coincidence I love oily fish, so more tuna, salmon and mackerel in my diet

Just to add, this is what this kind of forum does best, expands your knowledge, gets the old grey matter churning, evolution has just got very sexy for me

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HFXNrrK5YE

Amazing, and no, not awesome, Americans have given me a severe dislike of the word awesome.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

Dear Udayana,

Well I am convinced ( well about eating more oily fish ) and by a happy coincidence I love oily fish, so more tuna, salmon and mackerel in my diet

Just to add, this is what this kind of forum does best, expands your knowledge, gets the old grey matter churning, evolution has just got very sexy for me

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonnagle,

What we eat day to day has probably got nothing to do with hominid/hominin evolution. The vast majority of our current diets just did not exist or were not easily available 20000 years ago let alone over 2 million years ago. I myself, as a vegetarian, don't eat meat or fish, have only eaten fish once - entirely by accident! - and my brain is perfectly fine! Though, on the other hand, for all I know you are the last Glaswegian hunter gatherer and live on wild berries, hunting wild animals, scavenging and fishing! - but it doesn't mean that you will be any cleverer than someone eating a normal healthy diet

I do love swimming though and miss it terribly if I haven't been able to get to a pool for a couple days.

Evolution is interesting, but nearly every point can be argued over. It's the detail that makes it interesting. The points made by Jim Moore (in Enki's link)  will no doubt still be argued over decades from now, with each side carefully picking out the facts that conform their biases. All I'd like is that everyone keeps an open mind, not just writing off one school or idea out of prejudice or arrogance - but also to notice when those other factors are affecting their investigations and conclusions.

[Enki]

Hi Udayana,

I knew that a historian (or a journalist, or anyone telling a story) was forced to choose, out of an infinite number of facts, what to present, what to omit. And that decision inevitably would reflect, whether consciously or not, the interests of the historian.

― Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States

The hope is, of course, as you quite rightly say:

that everyone keeps an open mind, not just writing off one school or idea out of prejudice or arrogance - but also to notice when those other factors are affecting their investigations and conclusions.