The aquatic ape hypothesis was never crazy

Why? Another red herring.

The core problem is that AAH is an umbrella hypothesis.

And there goes the theory of evolution. That sure as fuck is an umbrella hypothesis. As is the heliocentric near-universe. And plate tectonics. And every single great idea out there dominating our scientific understanding today.
Congratulations, you just gave the creationists their best weapon yet in their ongoing fight against Darwin. How much are you willing to sacrifice just because Morgan was not supposed to have a point?

You can't really disprove it.

No, that's not true.

This started out as a good ol' fashioned testable prediction:
Aural exostoses (surfer’s ear) provide vital fossil evidence of an aquatic phase in Man’s early evolution
"Gee, if Homo erectus was indeed shallow-water fishing for brain-selective shellfish two million years ago and onward, wouldn't that somehow show on the already known fossils? Hang on a minute..."

It has the flavor of being a parsimonious explanation, but it is depending on cherry-picking traits acquired at wildly different times and is really no more powerful an explanation than the null hypothesis.

No, you're confusing it with the savannah hypothesis now.

(viz. human evolution is not particularly guided by water) Yes, bands of hominids camped by water, left fossil evidence there, because, erm, that's a good place to camp. There's often shade, water for bathing and drinking, and I hear the fishing goes better when you have water.

Which is why savannah baboons does the same thing. No, wait...

If PH theory were overturned, that would still not validate AAH. Theory is not a binary matter. Mobility adaptations that could aid hunting can also aid other means of survival - gathering can also be a long-range activity. Spotting predators is also aided by tall legs. Etc.

Which is why savannah baboons evolved the same traits. No, wait...
 
Please avoid excessive profanity when you post. Aim for a more cordial discussion.
The African Painted Dogs chivvy prey in relays. They tend to run them in big circles so the hunt will come close to where the next relay is resting.

Those little guys can make a deer disappear in a few minutes. They used to stalk me when I was volunteering at the Endangered Wolf Center (St. Louis). Twelve foot fence never seemed to be high enough. They frequently eyeballed it, just wondering. I sometimes think they spawned the phrase "Don't run! You'll only die tired."

And how in the flying piss hell fuck does that have anything to do with your hominin ancestors and their endurance hunting capacity?
 
Call it whatever you like. Humans can run faster over a long period than many prey animals. They evolved to do just that.

We outrun none of the potential prey species on the African savannah. Not over short, middle or long distances. Real world numbers cannot support endurance hunting for hominin brain growth across the last two million years. It is the stupidest idea ever taken serious by paleoanthropology.
 
"A study showed that hunters who used dogs had a hunting success of 60%, while those who employed persistent hunting had a hunting success of 37–100% over 15 attempted hunts. Hunters who hunted with bows and arrows had a hunting success of only 5%, whereas others who hunted with springhare probe had a hunting success of 14% and yet others who used clubs and spears had a success rate of 45%. The study was based on the hunting methods of the bushmen in southern Africa.
 
"A study showed that hunters who used dogs had a hunting success of 60%, while those who employed persistent hunting had a hunting success of 37–100% over 15 attempted hunts. Hunters who hunted with bows and arrows had a hunting success of only 5%, whereas others who hunted with springhare probe had a hunting success of 14% and yet others who used clubs and spears had a success rate of 45%. The study was based on the hunting methods of the bushmen in southern Africa.

The Khoe-San cannot be traced further back than 80,000 years.
 
The Khoe-San cannot be traced further back than 80,000 years.
Not the point. The point is persistence hunting has been shown to be viable in some circumstances.

It's a heckuva lot more convincing than your citation that we couldn't run down and eat horses, sled dogs or ostriches.

Your citation is a red herring.
 
We outrun none of the potential prey species on the African savannah. Not over short, middle or long distances.
Over long distances. That's the point. We can outrun animals much faster than we are - as long as we have enough time to do it. Prey animals (like gazelles) are much faster at sprinting, but do not have the cardiovascular or cooling systems to maintain that for long.
 
Despite the pseudoscience classification, there is arguably still an inspirational place for AAH in hydrofeminism.[1] That's where your hopes should actually reside.

Elaine Morgan first brought AAH into the realm of general feminism via The Descent of Woman. It finding a spot on the "but it's so do-gooder, give it break" soapbox resulted in a few high-profile virtue signalers back in the '90s (or whenever), but apparently not enough:

  • Morgan's work has received warm comments from several prominent people. Philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote of the criticisms of her:

    "Many of the counterarguments seem awfully thin and ad hoc. During the last few years when I have found myself in the company of distinguished biologists, evolutionary theorists, paleo-anthropologists, and other experts, I have often asked them just to tell me, please, exactly why Morgan must be wrong about the aquatic ape theory. I haven't yet had a reply worth mentioning, aside from those who admit, with a twinkle in their eyes, that they have often wondered the same thing."

    And in a BBC/Discovery Channel Documentary, the South African anthropologist Phillip V. Tobias said:

    "I see Elaine Morgan, through her series of superbly written books, presenting a challenge to the scientists to take an interest in this thing, to look at the evidence dispassionately. Not to avert your gaze as though it were something you that you hadn't ought to hear about or hadn't ought to see. And those that are honest with themselves are going to dispassionately examine the evidence. We've got to if we are going to be true to our calling as scientists."

Although the feminist view of power structures is spread over multiple categories, most of those (like in Critical Theory) are intellectually descended from the original narrators of social oppression: The frameworks of Karl Marx (class struggle), Antonio Gramsci (cultural hegemony), etc.

Since that offshoot material in humanities literature would be deemed ideological fringe stuff itself -- if plunked down in the standards of [yesterday's] science, AAH is in good company. Which is to say, as the social rehabilitation and decolonization of Western science incrementally continues in the course of administrative policy making, then -- who knows -- AAH's status might be elevated as well, just by being one of the incidental passengers on that haywagon ride to egalitarian utopia.

Anyway, as an AAH groupie, that's the activist tree which would probably be most productive (future-wise) in strapping yourself to. With heavy rope or bindings, to ensure not getting washed away (just in case the Old Guard doesn't die or give-up the ghost with a speedy whimper).

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Hydrofeminism and art
https://metropolism.com/en/feature/...onversation_with_artist_lucy_cordes_engelman/

EXCERPTS: Approaching her research materials and media as ‘collaborators’, Lucy Cordes Engelman willingly invites uncontrollable agents into her artistic process. Guided by the work of hydrofeminists and ancient women mystics, this leads her to create playful and engaging encounters...

[...] In any case, I want to remain open to the “what-if”. It is so fascinating and juicy to contemplate possibilities [...] but can also be dangerous of course – just thinking of the many conspiracy theories as we see today. When it remains flexible, fluid and watery though, it may carry resonances of truth. Take Elaine Morgan’s theory of the aquatic ape: Morgan speculated that we evolved from being in the water and that this is the reason why we are not so hairy. But it was utterly dismissed as pseudoscience. I don’t care though. Just playing with such thought-experiments can be very generative.’
- - - - -

Hydrofeminism is solidarity across watery bodies
https://kunstkritikk.com/hydrofeminism-is-solidarity-across-watery-bodies/]https://kunstkritikk.com/hydrofeminism-is-solidarity-across-watery-bodies/

Elena Lundquist Ortíz: Hydrofeminism is about solidarity across watery selves, across bodies of water. Today, we see acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels, dying coral reefs and polluted groundwater, to mention just a few examples. Hydrofeminism shows us that we are all involved in this through watery interactions and circulations. Water flows through bodies, species and materialities, connecting them for better or worse. Today, planetary thinking is feminist thinking.
- - - - -

Bodies of water: Posthuman Feminist Phenomenology]
https://www.interaliamag.org/interviews/astrida-neimanis/]https://www.interaliamag.org/interviews/astrida-neimanis/

Astrida Neimanis: I am feminist writer and teacher whose feminism necessarily addresses sexuality, race, class, coloniality, ability, and species privilege, as always intersecting with gender. [...] Feminism is a major and longstanding influence. I am only interested in feminisms that recognize how gender relations are tangled up in questions of settler colonialism, white supremacy, anti-poor policies and environmental degradation. None of these oppressions exists in isolation. As critical race and animal studies theorist Claire Jean Kim puts it, they will stand or fall together. My research aims to tease out the complicated and sometimes surprising ways in which these questions intersect.

[...] My book "Bodies of Water" thus asks: how might we reconsider what it means—philosophically, ethically, politically—to be a body, when that body is made mostly from waters that also make up the planet? And how might this intense interdependency ask us to reconsider what’s at stake in the various water crises that our planet currently faces? From an explicitly feminist perspective, I was also interested in the kinds of power relations that circulate in these currents. [...] How are environmental questions never separate from the intrahuman power politics of racism, misogyny, colonialism, abilism, classism?

[...] Hydrofeminism brings together a feminist sensibility with an ecological one. To begin one’s ethics and politics from the realisation that we are mostly made of water means refusing a separation between nature and culture, between an environment “out there” and a human subject “in here.” Hydrofeminism also understands the materiality of both bodily and planetary waters as sites of ethics and politics. It asks us to consider how gender and racial discrimination, for example, are both borne in our bodily waters...

[...] Hydrofeminism also means learning from water. Water is a connector, a differentiator, a facilitator, a communicator. It brings all kinds of bodies into intimate contact, despite and because of our differences. It respects membranes and containers...
_
I love the idea of something calling itself “hydrofeminism”! What a load of pompous, right-on ballocks. :biggrin:

But I feel sure you are right that at least the “Waterside Ape Hypothesis”, which is what it later became, may be artificially bolstered for reasons of identity politics, rather than science.

As you point out, Elaine Morgan, an English graduate and writer, with no science background, was attracted to it in order to oppose what she saw as a macho patriarchal assumption by (male?) palaeontologists that aggressive “masculine” activities such as hunting were what drove the evolution of Man. She liked the idea that peaceful “feminine” activities such as gathering shellfish, or fishing, could have been important.

But it doesn’t make much sense. Bears and otters catch fish without needing to lose their body hair.
 
We didn't have to outrun animals, we chased them in relays. The Kalahari bushmen learned this from the painted dogs. Never give them a chase to catch their breath.

The idea that one person runs down one deer is a mistake. This has been brought up earlier but apparently missed by some posters.
 
As you point out, Elaine Morgan, an English graduate and writer, with no science background, was attracted to it in order to oppose what she saw as a macho patriarchal assumption by (male?) palaeontologists that aggressive “masculine” activities such as hunting were what drove the evolution of Man.

Just read up a little, this is regarded as pseudoscience by main stream science. As you said although attending probably the most prestigious University in the UK & planet, she studied Dickens, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Hardy, Bronte and some American stuff. NOT, Leaky, Darwin, Weinberg Fisher, Mayr, Hardy, Maynard smith, Hamilton or Trivers.
 
Not the point. The point is persistence hunting has been shown to be viable in some circumstances.

So is spearfishing.

b012b25c9e478c384dc367b449d56bb2.jpg


Oldest cooked food known is 780,000 years old at a site in the Levant. Roasted catfish.

It's a heckuva lot more convincing than your citation that we couldn't run down and eat horses, sled dogs or ostriches.

Your citation is a red herring.

No, it just says what you don't want to hear. You vote Republican, don't you?
 
Back
Top